Pangalangan’s valuable impeachment insights
I must commend Inquirer columnist Raul Pangalangan, who I understand is a former UP College of Law dean and a Harvard alumnus, for enlightening readers, including myself, an ordinary citizen, on issues concerning the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona. His Feb. 17 column, “Flip-flopping on judicial restraint” is well-thought-out and gives us valuable insights on key legal issues.
I thought that the Supreme Court could interfere in any stage of the impeachment process, particularly on questions of law. But as has been argued, even by the senator-judges, the impeachment court is the sole authority when it comes to cases of impeachment, and so not even the Supreme Court can meddle in its proceedings. Thus, I think the temporary restraining order on Corona’s dollar deposits is not only illegal, but immoral as well, since it is Corona, the head magistrate, who’s being protected by eight of his subordinates.
Pangalangan makes the important point that it’s not just Corona who can be charged with flip-flopping on judicial decisions. He says the Supreme Court actually stepped in and altogether stopped the 2003 impeachment of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide. What we have here, he says, is “judicial overreach.” But Sen. Nene Pimentel argued before the Court that the Senate’s “sole power to try” impeachment cases (1) entirely excludes the application of judicial review over it; and (2) necessarily includes the Senate’s power to determine constitutional questions relative to impeachment proceedings.
I agree with Pangalangan on the need for judicial restraint. The Supreme Court has already encroached on the powers of the impeachment court with its TRO on Corona’s dollar deposits. What will it do next? Issue a TRO halting the impeachment proceedings? That’s not a far-fetched possibility at all, with Corona at the helm.
—JAYSON ALMONTERO,
