Are the Supremes and the Senate in cahoots?

Puwede namang hindi na lang naki-alam ang Korte Suprema, lalo na’t they practically changed, and added to, the rules, in a hair-splitting kind of way, by unanimous vote yet, which has lost the Court a lot of credibility. What if they had stayed out of it instead, left it to the Senate to deal with the Articles of Impeachment, dismiss it with or without a hearing, and let the Senate thereafter be answerable, accountable, to the people who elected them.

We have no such recourse with regard to the Supremes, and that is so unfair. We’re expected to just take their word for it — null and void, ab initio — no matter what we think, kahit may pinag-aralan at nag-iisip at nakakaintindi rin naman kahit hindi tayo abogado.

The mindset is, the Supremes know best when it comes to the rule of law, and that it is best, too, for the country that we all bow to the the wisdom of “the gods of Padre Faura” because theirs is the final say, never mind if we’re not quite persuaded (more like blindsided) by the ponente’s looooong-winded arguments [97 pages of text and footnote], because to insist daw that the Senate ignore the Supremes is to be a “banana republic” kasi ang ibig sabihin, wala tayong “rule of law”.

Thank goodness that former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna have weighed in:

CJ PANGILINAN: … I would have favored – if I were still an incumbent – the issuance of a Status Quo Ante order requiring the parties to maintain the current situation. … As part of due process, I would have asked for Oral Argument before promulgating any decision. If the Court had patiently heard Oral Argument on less important problems like the recognition of foreign divorces and the PhilHealth petitions, why not on this monumental case? In the least, if only to accord respect to a coequal branch of the government, the HOR, I would have called for Oral Argument before making up my mind and casting my vote.

J. AZCUNA:  THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT BE THE ONE TO CRAFT THE RULES TO ENFORCE ART XI OF THE CONSTITUTION. … the Supreme Court members are themselves impeachable officials. So they cannot be the ones to define the rules for their own possible impeachment. This would go against the very heart of due process— No one can be the judge in one’s own case. [CAPS Azcuna’s]

Beyond that and more, from the likes of Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and lawyer Christian Monsod, a framer of the ’87 Constitution  https://www.youtube.com/, my beef is with the timing. February 18 pa noong nag-file ang bigtime abogados ni VP Sara ng petition to nullify the Articles of Impeachment. What took the Court so long?

Check out SP Chiz‘s July 29 statement to the press re the July 25 null-and-void sound effects from the Supreme Court that I bothered to transcribe, for the record. He sounds like he’s feeling quite vindicated about redefining “forthwith” and allowing the “remand”. Totoo kaya ang chismis na linigawan niya at ng isang DDS senator ang Korte Suprema to intervene when, and in the way, they did? Perhaps to spare not just VP Sara but also the Senate from the inevitable intramurals? Or coincidence lang, synchronicity baga, na on the same wavelength siya at ang Supremes?

SP CHIZ: Personally, ang posisyon ko, bilang abogado, ay ito. Nagdesisyon ang Korte Suprema. Sang-ayon ka man doon o hindi, dapat ito’y sundin. Kung hindi, magkakaron tayo ng constitutional crisis at baka tingnan tayo ng mga karatıg-bansa natin at ibang tao na isang banana republic kung saan sinusunod lamang natin ‘yung mga gusto natin.

Bilang pananaw pa sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Lima sa labing-isang pinag-utos ng Korte Surpema na isumite ng Kamara ay kabilang sa order o kautusan ng Senate Impeachment mismo, kaugnay sa compliance ng Kamara sa one-year ban. Sabi nga ng isang kritiko ng Senado nung mga panahong ‘yon: Wala daw karapatan ang Senado utusan ang Kamara, na tanungin ang Kamara kaugnay ng one-year ban. Sabi ng kritikong ‘yon, desisyon daw ‘yon ng Korte Suprema. Ngayong nagdesisyon naman ang Korte Suprema, ang sinasabi ng parehong taong iyan ay: the Senate is the sole judge of impeachment cases, dapat ‘wag pansinin.

Ano ba yan. Talaga bang nagbabago kung anong tama at totoo ayon sa batas depende sa gusto natin? Hindi ba dapat, ano man ang gusto natin, dapat ang sundin natin ay ang batas at ang Saligang Batas. At ayon sa Konstitusyon, Korte Suprema lamang ang bukod tanging may kapangyarihan magbigay-buhay at mag-interpret ng ating Saligang Batas. May mga parte din ng desisyon na hindi ako sang-ayon, pero kung babasahin natin ng lubusan, kabilang yung mga separate opinions …

Nakasaad din sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema: hindi nagkaroon, mula’t-mula, ng jurisdiction ang Senado doon sa impeachment complaints dahil sa paglabag sa Bill of Rights, partikular, due process of law.

… kaugnay sa paglabag sa due process kinlaro din nila yon. Na kapag violation ng due process ang pinaguusapan, ay wala na tayong puwede i-review o ibalik pa dahil nawalan na ng jurisdiction mula sa simula ang anumang korte o husgado, ayon sa majority at unanimous decision. https://www.youtube.com/

Violation of due process nga ba?

J. AZCUNA: The Constitution provides that NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW (Art. III, The Bill of Rights). Someone being impeached does not stand to be deprived of life, nor of liberty, much less of property. So what is the Constitutional basis for insisting on applying due process rules IN ALL PHASES OF IMPEACHMENT?

None.

***

Is the Supreme Court facing a perfect storm? by Joel Ruiz Butuyan

Firestorm over impeachment authority Inquirer Editorial 

The Supreme Court betrayed the people by Tony Lopez