Ultimate interpreter

I am a supporter of President Aquino and would not want him to fall into the same situation as his predecessors. Our prayer group prays for his continued safety and success every time we meet each week.

The President, however, should be more careful in attacking the Supreme Court. He may be correct in questioning certain decisions, but he may be proven wrong in one of them. And his continuing attack on the Supreme Court might be interpreted as a refusal to enforce the provisions of the Constitution, which is an impeachable offense.

P-Noy strongly criticized the Supreme Court for ruling that the appointment of Chief Justice Renato Corona within the “prohibition period” prescribed under Art. VII, Sec. 15 of the Constitution is constitutional and valid. The Court based its decision on Art. VIII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution which governs the filling-up of vacancies in the Supreme Court.

Art. VIII Sec. 4 (1) states: “The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices.  It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven Members.  Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from occurrence thereof.”

It is true that there is no ambiguity in the Art. VII, Sec. 15.  However, neither is there any ambiguity in Art. VIII, Sec. 4 (1).  The ambiguity arises because of the existence of the two apparently contradicting provisions. Because of this, the Supreme Court felt it is authorized to make an interpretation and clarify this ambiguity.

The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that when it comes to the filling-up of vacancies in  the Supreme Court, the Constitution requires that the vacancy must be filled within 90 days from the date of its occurrence.  The Court felt that if the Constitution intended that appointments of vacancy in the Supreme Court would also be covered by the earlier provision of Art. VII, Sec. 15, it would expressly have stated so in Art. VIII, Sec. 4 (1).  The Supreme Court is the only entity authorized by the Constitution to rule on whether an act of government is constitutional or not. In the case of the appointment of Justice Corona as Chief Justice during the prohibition period, which applies to other presidential appointees as provided in Art. VII, Sec. 4, the Supreme Court has ruled with finality that this is constitutional. The previous decisions of the Supreme Court declaring appointments in the Judiciary within the prohibition period as unconstitutional did not involve members of the Supreme Court; hence the Court did not invoke the provision of Art. VIII, Sec. 4 (1).

—ROBERTO V. ARTADI,

[email protected]