High court decisions address the present and the future

Permit me to say a few more words on the issue of whether the articles of impeachment constitute an unconstitutional review of cases finally decided by the Supreme Court. The letter of Steve Vespera (Inquirer, 1/18/12) contains statements that should bother students of constitutional law. True, all government authority emanates from the people, but it is the people themselves who adopted a constitution that vested the judicial power in the courts alone. To say that Congress does not review the decisions of courts but can hold the members of the court accountable for their decisions is an exercise in semantics.

In the same breath, he suggests the need to use impeachment as a tool to curb court decisions that go against common sense. I wonder whether Vespera had actually read the decisions of the Supreme Court because if he did, he would realize that the rulings of the high court are accompanied by reasoned arguments. They are unpopular only because they are perceived to favor the former president whom public opinion has prejudged as guilty before she is even tried. But as Justice Cardozo once said, a constitution states not rules for the passing hour, but principles for an expanding future.

Hence, when the Supreme Court comes up with rulings in a case, it does so to address not only the present but the future when it might come to pass that a person actually innocent may need protection from the government’s abusive exercise of the awesome powers of criminal law.

Besides, who are the people Vespera referring to as having the reserved power to reopen and review the decisions of the Court? I am reminded of a scene in the movie “The Comedians” where a demagogue was ranting about the power of the people. He was inside a car with the character portrayed by Richard Burton. And Burton said: “Who are the people? Those inside this car?”

—MARIO GUARINA III, retired Court of Appeals associate justice, Sao Paolo Street, Better Living, Parañaque City