Sounding Board

Sovereignty of the people


Appeal has repeatedly been made to the will of the sovereign people as guide. Popular sovereignty in fact is the bedrock upon which a democratic system rests. Our Constitution begins with the assertion that “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.”

The sovereign people assert their sovereignty in two distinct processes. The two processes should not be confused.

The first is through their vote in a plebiscite ratifying or amending the Constitution. Through this process the people express in a permanent manner what the powers of government should be, what the limitations are, how the people who are to exercise the powers of sovereignty are to be chosen and what the extent and limits of their power are. As presently found in the Constitution, powers are divided among three departments. Succinctly, this means that the legislature makes the law, the executive implements the law and the Constitution, and the judiciary determines what the law and Constitution mean, thereby achieving orderly checks and balances.

The second is through the sovereign people’s vote in an election. This vote is not an unlimited grant of power. Nor is it a grant of power to navigate outside of the limits of the will of the sovereign people as expressed in the Constitution. To assume that an overwhelming vote of the people in an election or a high approval rating in a periodic survey is an expression of popular revision of what they have expressed in a constitutional plebiscite is an invitation to disaster.

Government officials have only so much authority as is given to them by law and the Constitution, and not what they might assume to be given to them by popular rallies. A great lawyer once said to a “reform”-minded English monarch, “This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast. If you cut them down, do you really think that you will be able to withstand the winds that will blow then?” True, the lawyer was beheaded later! But the consequences of his beheading confirmed the correctness of his warning.

In this critical moment of our constitutional history, my hope is that the justices of the Supreme Court, imperfect though they may be, will not capitulate and that others in the judiciary will not tremble in their boots and yield what is constitutionally theirs to President Aquino. If they do, it would be tragic for our nation.

Impeachment. Impeachment is very much in the air. It is a legitimate tool enshrined in the Constitution. But it is a two-edged sword. It can be an instrument of reform but it can also be an instrument of vindictive persecution carried out by blindfolded followers. For this reason the Constitution has surrounded the process with safeguards which limit the number of people subject to impeachment and which makes its success difficult to achieve.

The obvious goal of the current move toward impeachment is to scuttle the membership of the Supreme Court and remove the “obstacles to progress.” The initial target has been revealed, with more expected to follow. But there are 15 justices of the Supreme Court. I am not surprised if the Palace people do not expect impeachment, a very arduous partisan and political exercise, to achieve a pro-Palace Supreme Court. Not in the near future anyway. Hence, another impatient rallying cry is beginning to be heard: Occupy the Supreme Court!

Roosevelt tried to neutralize a Supreme Court whom he found to be a stumbling block by trying to pack it with people of his choice. He failed. In the end, Roosevelt had to wait until the retirement of the justices he disagreed with. It did not happen during his term. And to date divisions in the US Supreme Court continue. Count the continuing number of cases where the vote is 5-4.

I have been teaching constitutional law long enough to realize that there often are two or more possible sides to a constitutional argument. And the outcome of a constitutional debate often depends upon the modality of constitutional interpretation a justice might use. As one political writer has put it, describing the Supreme Court is like discussing the theories of Karl Marx—one has to indulge in half-truths correcting each other and exaggerations of important truths. This is because the Supreme Court is not just a court. It is also a political institution. Because the key provisions of the Constitution are couched in grand ambiguities and because the key provisions concern the larger issues of our life, of our liberties, and of our happiness, the Supreme Court, by the exercise of judicial review, wields tremendous political power.

Moreover, the composition of a Court at any given time in history is not just a product of chance. It is the result of a deliberate creation. One only has to look at the confirmation debates and what precedes them in the choice of US Supreme Court justices to see how personal, political and ideological considerations play a determinative role. It is just too bad that we see nothing as thorough in our process of choosing justices. If we did, the Court would now have a different face.

What is now referred to as the Arroyo Court took nine years in the making through a selection process heavily tilted in favor of an incumbent president. That tilted process remains, but I doubt that President Aquino will have time, within constitutional limits, to create an Aquino Court during his term. And since so much depends on the outcome of constitutional debates, what is required of him, if he wants the constitutional upper hand without resorting to bullying, is to build a strong, not necessarily loud, constitutional litigation team.

Get Inquirer updates while on the go, add us on these apps:

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • lucidlynx

    Are you saying that government authority, which emanates from the people, does not apply in cases where the Legislative branch exercises its powers of impeachment if the target is a member of the Judiciary? It looks like you are being selective in your application of the constitution.

    Mr. Bernas, was Corona a student of yours at the Ateneo? Ateneo pala, no wonder. Moral values are only invoked if the situation benefits them. MVP’s plagiarized graduation speech has long been forgotten without finding out who wrote it.

    • baning

      I am not saying that his brilliance is past but I have this nagging thought that Mr Bernas is running out of sensible arguments. His recent defense of Corona’s court to stay the course was supported with a weak argument that cannot be supported by judicial nor historical precedents.

  • Jestro

    Hey! what happened to my reply to Mang Teban??? You made me wait a moment and never brought it out  WHY??? Did I hit a jagular? At least be fair and let us know why??

  • LuliBernas

    Let’s take the worst but probable outcome:
    The Senate does not impeach Corona (as you espouse).
    The Supreme Court allows Arroyo to leave the country.
    What then?
    Will the country explode in anger?
    Will Arroyo’s children return as Senators, Congressmen and Governors?
    What advice would you have for the people then?

  • jgl41456

    I am astounded by Mr. Bernas’  mind-boggling blitheness and complete turnaround . Does this have to do with his favorite nephew who is now the husband of Luli? If that is the case then his views are already partial just like that of Corona and all the other subservient Arroyo justices.


  • kayanatin2098

    Remember also that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of SLAVERY. (Dred Scott v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)).  This Court ignored jurisprudence (and justice) when it declared slavery as an exception to the equality of all men in the U.S. Constitution.
      It took an Abraham Lincoln to challenge this injustice.  He SUCCEEDED. 
    Please be FAIR in citing examples from the U.S. jurisprudence and history.  The U.S. justice system is not perfect. If anything, it has been repeatedly used as a political tool.  

    OUR Constitution did not make the Supreme Court above the law.  Its rulings must be supported by law, else it exceeds its authority.  
     Law is only tool. A justice system based on the “rule of law” only works if the justices themselves possess integrity and independence.  Corona has NONE. Rule of Law also does not mean Rule of the Supreme Court.
    Why would the Constitution protect us from the tyranny of the President but not from the tyranny of a morally-deprived Chief “Justice”?

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


editors' picks

May 23, 2015

Tough guy

May 22, 2015

China versus Edca