The President’s bullying of the Supreme Court
After a week of scathing attacks on the Supreme Court by President Aquino, it’s a good time to pause and assess the extent of the damage left by the bullying assaults on the institutional balance of power between the presidency and the high court.
In the attacks on Chief Justice Renato Corona at the First National Criminal Justice Summit on Dec. 5 and at the Makati Business Club anniversary celebration on Dec. 1, the nation witnessed the fiercest confrontation yet between the presidency and the judiciary in the political sector since the founding of the republic.
It is a confrontation that has escalated into a hate campaign fueled by the presidency in the guise of mounting a holy crusade to make Arroyo administration officials accountable for offenses of electoral rigging in 2004 and 2007, at least six cases of graft and corruption, plunder and abuse of power.
This goal of transparency in governance and the principle of accountability appear to have broad public support (if we go by public opinion surveys).
The big issue that cannot be downgraded is how accountability is to be achieved, that is, whether it is done according to an important principle in obtaining justice—due process.
Dangerous showdown
Over the past few days, the hate campaign has swiftly accelerated into dangerous showdown between the President and the court on the brink of a point of no return where it has become a demand for total annihilation or unconditional surrender of the Supreme Court.
In one of the recent statements issued by Malacañang, the President was reported to have claimed that God was on his side in his battle against corruption and for accountability.
Please, let us not involve God in these secular intramurals of flawed politicians. Let us not mix public debate over the controversial methods and actions of Mr. Aquino in his fights with the Supreme Court and the previous government with superstition over this claimed mandate of heaven.
How this mandate was transmitted is something intriguing—through hearing voices from above?
This piece will not waste time recapitulating details of the last week’s confrontation leading to the humiliation of Corona at the justice summit.
It is sufficient to summarize that the conflict was sparked by the midnight appointment of Corona as Chief Justice by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on the eve of her stepping down. Related to this issue is that the court was packed by her appointees before she retired.
Exercise of superior powers
The court packing led to a series of decisions, most of which were favorable to Arroyo in cases involving her. This issue came to a head when the court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on a Department of Justice hold-departure on attempts of Arroyo to travel abroad for medical treatment, and the subsequent refusal by the department to obey the TRO, provoking a constitutional standoff.
The administration, Corona and Arroyo’s lawyers have more than amply argued their positions. This corner is not prepared to examine and pass judgment on the contending arguments.
The purpose of this piece is to point out the exercise of the superior powers of the presidency in its showdown with the Supreme Court.
During the showdown, Mr. Aquino aggressively pursued his conflict against the court. The confrontation demonstrated beyond doubt the dangers of the awesome concentration of powers in the hands of the President.
He is deploying the full weight of these powers to crush Corona and the entire court and to weaken its independence.
Legal concerns
The issue that has caused concerns among legal circles is the independence of the judiciary from political authority.
Many in these circles have warned publicly that the independence of the court should not be compromised by the short-term policy goals of the administration and its concerns over possible obstruction by an unfriendly court.
The President has demonstrated that in pursuing his political objectives, he can send past officials to jail to account for past misdeeds.
In his relentless attacks, he has acted like a raging bull, goring any object on its path.
Corona is fully aware that the Supreme Court is the passive component in our constitutional system of checks and balances.
He knows he cannot fight the President fire with fire, and so knowing his limitations, all he could do is to deflect calmly the blows coming from someone on the rampage.
By hook or by crook
It appears that the purpose of the President’s onslaught is to get rid of Corona by hook or by crook so he can reorganize the high court with his own appointees and to have a tribunal more compliant to his narrow political objectives.
There are three ways to remove Corona: first shame and humiliate him to resign. It is unlikely Corona will step down without a fight.
The administration applied this pressure tactic to Arroyo’s Ombudsman, Merceditas Gutierrez, who resigned after she was impeached by the House and before she was tried by the Senate. The success of this browbeating appeared to have emboldened Mr. Aquino to try it on Corona.
But there are other Arroyo appointees in the court. What will the President do with them, or will he try to ease them out to have control of the court?
Impeachment
The second option of a constitutional removal is to impeach Corona. This procedure is messy and entails obstacles in Congress.
The President may get the House with the allies of his Liberal Party to impeach Corona, but the Senate, which tries impeachment cases, is a hard nut to crack. Its own independence from the executive will be at stake, should Corona be impeached.
The third option is to harness the streets to storm the high court and drag out Corona and other suspected pro-Arroyo justices with another “people power” show of force. This is what the hysterical lynch mob in the streets are clamoring for.
Can they mount a rage to remove Corona with another people power comparable to one that toppled the Marcos dictatorship? This method could provoke a real people power anarchy in the streets that could invite armed intervention to restore public order.
In mob rule, nobody is safe from lynching, not excluding the do-gooders in the lynch mob calling for summary justice to those targeted for removal or prosecution by this “daang matuwid” regime.
Maybe, it is prudent for the hotheads and vigilantes to think a little more about the consequences of a real revolution.
We can’t always use Edsa I as a model to bail us out of a constitutional crisis.
