People have the final say
This is in reaction to the letters of Roberto Artadi (Inquirer, 1/12/12) and retired Court of Appeals justice Mario Guarina III (Inquirer, 1/13/12). Artadi said that Chief Justice Renato Corona’s “midnight appointment” is a settled issue and no longer tenable as an impeachment charge. Verily, the Supreme Court was caught in the horns of a dilemma vis-à-vis the 90-day requirement in the Constitution to fill up any vacancy, and the presidential election ban on the other. It then proceeded to rule that the first was mandatory and more urgent. The election ban was thus set aside to give way to that provision—and, quite evidently, to render obeisance to former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s less than honorable intentions.
Seriously, since when has the Supreme Court been bothered about “deadlines” set in the Constitution? Take Art. VIII, Sec. 15 (1): “All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution shall be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court…” Two years, indeed, but scan any volume of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and weep! On the average it takes the Court 10 to 15 years to decide cases with finality (or semi-finality?). Its lame excuse for jettisoning the constitutional mandate is that it is “merely directory” (read: merely a suggestion)!
Guarina’s view hews to Fr. Joaquin Bernas’ (of the Ateneo Law School, Corona’s alma mater): because the Supreme Court has already ruled on such “midnight appointment” the case is closed and any “review” by Congress of such decision is just plain hubris. We disagree. Such decision may not be reviewed, but the errant justices themselves are not beyond public accountability for it. The Constitution made sure of that. It permits their impeachment and removal from office on grounds of “culpable violation of the Constitution” or “betrayal of the public trust”—leaving to Congress the determination of what those phrases mean. Indeed, if Congress were precluded from questioning even the justices’ blatant misinterpretation of the Constitution, any charge of “culpable violation of the Constitution” would become nothing more than an illusion.
The mechanism of “checks and balances” works to curb any judicial abuse of discretion on the part of the Supreme Court as when the justices’ decisions go against plain common sense (e.g., when they ruled that a conditional “temporary restraining order” is “immediately effective” without the conditions being complied with first. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why they went to such ridiculous extent just to stay the hand that prevented Arroyo from fleeing the country.)
Guarina and Father Bernas have got it all wrong. The most basic tenet of republicanism is “all government authority emanates from the people.” Thus, it is really the people who have the “final say” and if their duly-elected representatives in Congress see that the Supreme Court justices have abused their authority, no less than the Constitution itself sanctions their ouster.
—STEVE Y. VESPERA, ESQ,
