Courage and grit of our Supreme Court

My piece on March 11 (“Scotus hands Trump a major victory”) explained that our Supreme Court is unafraid of jumping into the “vortex of political whirlpools” during extraordinary situations while that of the United States (and of other countries) is generally shy, preferring not to enter Justice Felix Frankfurter’s “political thicket.” To answer questions, let me cite four cases that exemplify the courage and grit of our Court.

THE FIRST AND THE SECOND REFER TO THE TWO PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE (PI) CASES. Santiago v. Comelec (March 19, 1997, per J, later CJ, Hilario G. Davide Jr., en banc) shut down the PI intended to change our form of government from the presidential to the parliamentary. The change would have enabled Fidel V. Ramos to continue heading our government as prime minister after his single six-year presidential term expired. Reason of the Court: The law crafted by Congress to implement PI was “insufficient and inadequate.”

Lambino v. Comelec (Oct. 25, 2006, per J Antonio T. Carpio, en banc) ruled that the parliamentary system could not be instituted by a PI (described by the ponencia as a “grand deception” and a “gigantic fraud”). It scuttled any possibility that could have authorized then president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) to continue governing as prime minister.

The third, Estrada v. Desierto (March 2, 2001, per J, later CJ, Reynato S. Puno, en banc), legitimized by a vote of 13-0 (CJ Davide and I inhibited) the ascension of then vice president GMA to the presidency and the ouster of then president Joseph Estrada via what is referred to as “Edsa People Power 2.”

BUT EVEN MORE COURAGEOUS, IF NOT MORE HEROIC, was the unilateral announcement by CJ Davide on the early morning of Jan. 20, 2001, to swear in GMA at noon of that day at the Edsa Shrine in Quezon City. The announcement was triggered by my suggestion to Davide to administer the oath of office of the vice president as “acting president,” given that the Cabinet, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and the Philippine National Police, amid the massive, chanting, demanding throng at the Edsa Shrine, withdrew their support to then president Joseph Estrada. Consequently, no Philippine official would follow Estrada’s directives to calm the multitudes and restore order. On the other hand, then vice president GMA had no legal authority to lead the people. The country was left with no leader! It was ripe for a coup d’etat or a chaotic civil strife!

After a lot of hemming and hawing during an emergency session of the Court convened later that morning, the justices unanimously accepted my suggestion and authorized the chief justice to swear in GMA as “acting president.” Nonetheless, at noon at the Edsa Shrine, CJ Davide skipped the word “acting” and swore in Arroyo as “president” amid chants of “Davide, Davide, Davide.” Dismayed at Davide’s action, the justices held several sessions during the next few days. The CJ gallantly owned sole responsibility for the deletion of the word “acting” during the induction rites. After more animated discussions, the justices unanimously passed a resolution on Jan. 22, 2001, “to confirm the authority” of the CJ to swear in GMA as “President of the Philippines.” (For more details, see Chapter 11 of my book, “Reforming the Judiciary.”)

THE FOURTH, FRANCISCO V. HOUSE (Nov. 10, 2003, per J Conchita Carpio Morales, en banc), barred the House of Representatives from entertaining the second impeachment complaint filed against CJ Davide. Reason: The House violated this constitutional provision: “No impeachment proceeding shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.” After several days, the House reluctantly obeyed.

True, the Constitution granted the House “the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.” However, when the same Constitution imposes conditions, limitations, or restrictions on a power vested in the Congress, presidency, or other instrumentalities, or for grave abuse of discretion, the judiciary, IMHO, may pass upon the exercise of that power but only to determine whether the constitutionally imposed conditions, limitations, or restrictions have been observed. In the Francisco case, the House did not observe the one-year prohibited period imposed by the Charter.

To sum up, the Court, in the first two examples, defied the wishes of the incumbent presidents to revise the Charter via PI. The third example is worse. The justices came out of their sacred temple in Mt. Olympus and courageously slugged it out in the plains of their own volition without waiting for a complaint or petition to be filed first. This is an unusual and unprecedented way to settle a political whirlpool. Had they lost, all the justices would have been ousted for committing “grave abuse of discretion” and for venturing into the political thicket. In the fourth, they risked impeachment by the House.

As a member of the Court when these four cases were decided, I can vouch for the courage and grit displayed by the justices in tiptoeing the political minefields to uphold the rule of law and to save the nation from chaos and civil strife.

Comments to [email protected]