Activism, impeachment, dynasty

There is judicial activism when a court undertakes any of the following: a court invalidates the constitutional action of another branch (e.g., legislature, executive); a court fails to adhere to a precedent; a court engages in judicial policymaking; a court departs from accepted interpretive methodology; or when a court engages in result-oriented judging (Kmiec, 2004). In judicial restraint, judges limit their interpretation to the text of the law; whereas in an activist court, members delve into broader societal issues and make themselves architects of legal and social change. Courts as Policymakers: Untangling Judicial Activism in the Philippines by Alicor Panao 22 March 2024 up.edu.ph

To my mind, “activism” is always associated with social-political movements seeking to improve the status quo and make life better for our marginalized majority, i.e., social justice kumbaga. But as it turns out, the Supremes’ kind of “judicial activism” is differently minded, as shown by the Supreme Court’s decision on VP Sara’s impeachment. Parang mas pinahalagahan ng Korte ang kapakanan at kahilingan ng VP na ipa-walang-bisa ang  Articles of Impeachment kaysa ang kapakanan at kahilingan ng taongbayan (represented by the Lower House) na ituloy ang trial (sa Upper House) kung saan Duterte can defend herself and even possibly clear her name. https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/

Nakakagulat ba itong desisyon ng Supremes? Nakakadismaya pero hindi nakakagulat. Siyempre sumagi sa isip ko ang 1973 decision na nagpa-walang-bahala sa pagkaka-“ratify”-kuno ng Martial Law Constitution ni Marcos via raise-your-hands “Citizens Assemblies” — wala na daw magagawa, in effect na daw kasi, or something like that. And then there was Gloria Arroyo’s midnight appointment of CJ Renato Corona in May 2010 even it was against the law. And what about the burial of Marcos Sr. sa Libingan ng mga Bayani noong November 2016, na kahit ang mga Marcos ay tila nahiyâ — behind closed gates and by-invitation-only ang naganap na seremonyas.

BUT HERE’S A SILVER LINING

Check out this convo of a couple of hopeful young thinkers: rappler‘s senior legal reporter and a UP law prof: https://www.youtube.com/

LIAN BUAN: Can SC be judicial activists, too, for the pending anti-dynasty case?

JOHN MOLO:  If we can create guidelines for impeachment, which is the sole prerogative of both Houses of Congress, I’m pretty certain we can finally order Congress to finally pass a law that’s 40 years delayed as required by the Constitution. That’s the silver lining perhaps here .. Kung ito, hindi lang nag-act … hindi gumalaw yung sec-gen … is already grave abuse of discretion … e mas lalo pa kaya the pending political dynasty issue … na required legislation, na 40 years in-ignore. … Kinda gives me more confidence that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Quite a long dark tunnel it’s been, with the Supremes dismissing petitions (since 2013) to compel Congress to enact an anti-dynasty law because daw Congress is a co-equal branch of government … to do so would be to “violate the principle of separation of powers among the three branches of government.” Still pending is the last one filed March 31 2025 by the 1Sambayan Coalition of former justices, retired military officials, priests, academics, and lawyers, calling it a “desperate attempt to give life to the 1987 Constitution” and a “relief from the chokehold political dynasties have placed on this nation.” https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/

And guess who was quick to anticipate the Supremes, forthwith, at the time:

The Supreme Court cannot compel Congress to enact a law banning political dynasties, Senate President Francis Escudero said, citing constitutional limitations.

His remarks come in response to a petition filed by 1Sambayan and other civic groups urging the SC to mandate Congress to fulfill its constitutional obligation under Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution.

“The Supreme Court has said that Congress cannot be forced by a mandamus from the court to pass a law. The legislative process is a political question,” Escudero said at a press briefing on April 3.

I don’t get it (because I’m not a lawyer?).  The Supremes can’t order them around on the matter of political dynasties, sabi niya noon, pero ngayon, on the matter of impeachment, puwedeng puwede?

“The Supreme Court’s ruling is final and immediately executory,” Escudero said. “Whether we like the Supreme Court’s decision or not, we might be called a banana republic (if we do not follow it).”  https://www.manilatimes.net/

And it doesn’t seem to matter na ayon sa OCTA Research, based on a July 12-17 survey:

RANJIT RYE:  A significant number of Filipinos, 8 of 10, feel that the Vice President is innocent and want the impeachment trial to continue. A lot of people don’t see the impeachment just as pananagutan or accountability. A lot of people think of it as due process, a chance for the VP to clear her name.  Storycon 31 July https://www.youtube.com/

Senator Tito Sotto says he will object vociferously if when the Duterte bloc rushes to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment on August 6 without waiting for the Supremes to rule on the Motions for Reconsideration because daw the Supremes just MIGHT hear oral arguments and even reverse their ruling. “We will object!’ Sotto papalag kung may mag-mosyon i-dismiss ang impeachment ni VP Sara
https://www.youtube.com/

But then again, what if the Supremes stick to their guns? Next year na lang uli? But given all those new rules? Asa pa!