Category: supreme court

Impeachment & the Supremes

Sa madaling salita, pinakialaman at ginulo ng Korte Suprema ang proseso ng pag-i-impeach sa presidente, bise-presidente, supreme court justices, atbp. gayong malinaw na sinasabi ng 1987 Constitution na ang proseso ng impeachment ay saklaw ng Awtoridad ng Legislative branch, hindi ng Judicial branch.

FR. RANHILIO CALLANGAN AQUINO: It cannot be the case that the Supreme Court has the final word. Were this so, we would equivocate on “democracy.” The rule of law is not guaranteed by the Supreme Court alone but by all branches, offices and agencies of government. … [O]ur constitution does not quite clearly entrust the well-being of the nation and the Republic to unelected modern avatars of the Platonic Guardians! Besides, there is something paradoxical to the claim that the elected representatives of the people cannot be trusted to uphold the Constitution in the same way that unelected magistrates do. https://www.manilatimes.net/

Bakit nga ba tayo papayag na ang masusunod tungkol sa impeachment ay mga mahistrado na ni hindi natin ibinoto at hindi natin kilala, na panay impeachable rin? Are these more stringent rules to protect themselves, too, rather than the checks and balances essential to democracy?

Interesante na wala pa akong naririnig na calls or moves to impeach the Supremes even if many legal thinkers, including a 1986 Constitutional Commissioner, are aghast at the ruling. Dahil kaya it would mean impeaching all 13 justices of the “unanimous vote” leaving only two? Puwede namang the Chief Justice and ponente Leonen lang, why not, and everybody else on probation, or something like that, haha, we wish.

Naalala ko tuloy the times the House of Reps tried to impeach a chief justice. Back in Arroyo times, first Erap — over Edsa Dos — and then GiboTeodoro and Wimpy Fuentebella — over judiciary development funds — tried to have CJ Hilario Davide impeached, but no dice. In Duterte times, an impeachment complaint vs. CJ Lourdes Sereno— over failure to file SALN atbp. — was overtaken by a quo warranto petition declaring her unqualified for the office from the start, and she had to go. In PNoy times, there was CJ Renato Corona‘s case that went all the way to trial and saw him impeached over SALN secrets.

This one, in BBM’s time, that finds the Supremes brazenly tampering with the Constitution, is certainly more serious a transgression involving grave abuse of discretion and deserves to be disputed  by the Legislature and settled once and for all.

FR. RANHILIO: Senate President Tito Sotto expressed his dismay over the resolution of the Supreme Court — particularly what it meant for the power of the Senate in regard to impeachment proceedings. Quite expectedly, he has been slurred for pitting his educational background against Their Honors, the learned members of the Supreme Court. But that misses the point. Sotto was raising a matter of profound constitutional moment. He was asking whether, in the exercise of powers clearly granted Congress by the Constitution itself, the Supreme Court’s criteria, standards and positions could interdict the chambers of Congress. That is a question about the workings of our democracy — and it is neither trivial nor impertinent.

Pero hindi ako bilib sa panukalang charter change para daw linawin ang pagkakasaad ng eksklusibong saklaw ng Lehislatura sa impeachment process. Masalimuot na undertaking ang cha-cha. Constituent assembly ba o constitutional convention? Kung con-ass, pagtatalunan pa uli kung joint o separate voting. Kung con-con, katakut-takot na gastos at napakahabang proseso ng pagtatalo at pagdedebate ng mga isyung pangekonomiya at pampulitika. Meanwhile, what? Sunud-sunuran muna sa dictates ng Supremes, now that mayroon nang endorsed impeachment complaints vs. both PBBM and VP Sara sa House of Reps?

But what’s to prevent the counsels of PBBM and VP Sara from going to the Supremes and contesting, again, the constitutionality of the processes, or the sufficiencies in form and substance? Which would take the Supremes forever to decide, as usual. Walang katapusan, ika nga.

Sabi ni Rey Talimio Jr. sa comment thread ni Manolo Quezon sa Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/manolo.quezon/

When the Supreme Court is alleged to have committed grave abuse of discretion, the remedy is not defiance, not political pressure, and not ignoring the ruling. The remedies are institutional: a motion for reconsideration, future doctrinal correction by the Court itself, constitutional amendment, or in the most extreme case, impeachment of the Justices through the process defined by the Constitution. That is the design of checks and balances. Courts are not infallible.

Good to know that impeachment of the Justices is indeed an option in this most extreme case. #Impeach the Supremes

Let Supremes decide Villanueva dismissal

​In 2013 pork barrel-fixer Janet Lim Napoles named Joel Villanueva among her 100 congressmen-accomplices. In 2016 then-Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales ordered him, then a newly-elected senator, dismissed from public office. 

Karen Davila: In 2016 when you ordered his dismissal, the Senate refused. Should the Senate have followed…?

Conchita Carpio-Morales: They should have. Otherwise everyone wants to be a senator… because any infraction of the law that you commit, you will still remain a senator.

Davila: The Ombudsman ordered a senator’s dismissal, hindi sumunod ang Senado, as a body. They all cooperated as an institution. Anong nagging epekto  nito sa atin?

Carpio-Morales: We are the laughingstock of other countries because we don’t know how to  enforce our law, we don’t know how to implement the decisions that are spawned from legal  proceedings. https://www.facebook.com/

The interview happened October 5. Two days later, Oct 7, DOJ Sec Boying Remulla was appointed Ombudsman. He took his oath of office Oct 9. Two weeks later, Oct 23, he announced that he would write to Senate President Vicente Sotto III and ask him to enforce Villanueva’s dismissal from public office. But before he could do so, ex-Ombudsman Samuel Martires announced that he had reversed the order, clearing the senator of all charges back in July 2019. But why did he not make it public then?

Jarius Bondoc: Martires’ claim is queer. He never publicized his exculpation of Villanueva supposedly to “protect a person’s dignity.” Duh! Doesn’t absolution from a crime restore a person’s dignity? So why hide it? Baligtad na ba ang mundo?

Queerer is Villanueva’s silence all these years. His graft buster image was tarnished 17 years ago in 2008 when as Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption party rep he was linked to P10-million sleaze. https://www.philstar.com/

Queer, and lame. It was more likely because, after 17 years, parang nakalimutan na ng madlang pipol ang kaso, so why even remind us. News of such a dismissal would certainly have scandalized, and triggered debates anew. The question now is: valid ba ang Martires dismissal of the Carpio-Morales dismissal? Former solicitor general Florin Hilbay doesn’t think so:

The order of former ombudsman Carpio-Morales dismissing Senator Villanueva for the PDAF scam was a public act. Former ombudsman Martires had no authority to reverse that decision in secret, thereby depriving the public or any interested party from questioning his decision before the Supreme Court. Therefore, Ombudsman Remulla can treat the secret memo as having had no effect and can proceed with his intention to request the Senate to enforce the original order of dismissal. https://www.facebook.com/AttyHilbay/

Pero huwag nang ibalik sa Senado. Ayon kay Senator Ping Lacson:

“The jurisdiction of the Senate committee on ethics does not cover offenses allegedly committed by the members of the Senate before being elected as senators,” Lacson explained in a Viber message on Tuesday. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/

Derecho na dapat sa Supreme Court ang appeal. Here’s hoping the Supremes don’t fail us yet again. But if they do — puro mga DDS nga pala ang nakaupong mahistrado, except for one, okay, maybe two — huwag tayo magugulat. Matinik ang mag-amang Villanueva; they knew exactly how to play Digong 2016-18, which led to that dismissal. This time, I wouldn’t put it past them to make it a DDS issue vs BBM. I hear Mocha is already on defend-Joel mode. Who’s next, that meowing Rep?

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!

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