Courts under siege in season of lynch-mob populism

The judiciary, the weakest of the three presumably co-equal and independent branches of Philippine constitutional democracy, is beleaguered to defend its autonomy. The House of Representatives, in collusion with the Executive out to prove that it is determined to deliver on its promise to make officials of the previous administration accountable for wrongdoing and abuse of power, rushed in a few hours the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. At no time since the founding of the system of checks and balances that underpins Philippine democracy has the Court been more heavily pummeled by body blows from the concerted attacks of these political branches. The surrender of the House to the importuning of the Aquino administration has forced the Senate, which acts as the tribunal that will try the impeachment case against Corona, to the fall back position of defending whatever shred of independence is left with the Legislature.

As a result of the subjugation of the House and the attack on Corona, which amounts to decapitating the Court, the tripod upon which the constitutional system rests is undoubtedly now crippled and the system is limping ready to keel over and collapse from the next blows.

The Senate is now the last line of fortification that protects our political rights from being overrun by dictatorial rule which claims to have a mandate from heaven to do what it pleases to send to jail enemies of the regime and of the people. But this fortification appears to be nothing more solid than the wishful thinking or assumption that the senators are more independent-minded than their House counterparts.

Branding enemies of the regime as enemies of  the people is what totalitarian dictatorships, of either the fascist or communist varieties, have done to fan mob hysteria to terrorize the  “enemies of the people,” a catchword for political dissenters and those who do not agree with the policies and priorities of the regime.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, chair of the impeachment tribunal, and some senators, have been trying to assure us that the Senate would conduct a fair trial based on evidence and the rule of law, not on passion and narrow interests. They have uttered bold words that the Senate would resist efforts by the Executive to subjugate the Legislature. This remains to be seen, when the test comes.

Ahead of the impeachment trial, the administration has started a psywar to condition the public mind of the inevitability of the Chief Justice’s conviction and, indeed, it has formed a team to search for possible replacements for Corona. This is clearly a preemptive move, based on the assumption that the Senate would convict Corona. This act is an affront to and disrespectful of the Senate. It prejudges the decision of the tribunal. It assumes that the tribunal is in the pocket of the Executive. It rules out a Senate decision to acquit. What if there’s an acquittal? Will the President accept such a verdict?  What’s this Plan B as a contingency in case of an acquittal? What then is the next option? Power grab? The declaration of a national emergency? This is the problem with inflexible plans based on preconceived variables.

According to Palace spokespersons, there’s nothing to fear from the short list of Corona’s possible replacements. This is forward planning or anticipation, they say. Except for the fact that we are not told what’s the next option if Plan A fails. This is what makes things dangerous and unpredictable.

The other day, the graft cases against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo were raffled off to Sandiganbayan’s 4th Division, which is chaired by a reputedly tough and upright magistrate, Justice Gregorio Ong.  He was appointed by deposed President Joseph Estrada. The other division members are Justices Jose Hernandez and Cristina Cornejo, both Arroyo appointees.

Ong said there would be no special treatment for Arroyo. She had made so many appointments in the appellate courts during her nine years in office such that judges who are handling cases involving her are challenged to exercise extraordinary rigor in proving their independence and fairness.

In 2007, Arroyo appointed Ong to the Supreme Court only to withdraw his appointment papers when objections were raised from many quarters, including the Supreme Court itself, over the question of his citizenship. The Constitution requires that all members of the Supreme Court and other collegial courts should be natural-born Filipinos.  Ong’s birth certificate showed he was a Chinese national, while a Bureau of Immigration document said he was a natural-born Filipino.

As the controversy simmered, Malacañang announced that Ong had voluntarily withdrawn his appointment in order to give Arroyo “a free hand to appoint another to the Supreme Court.”