Truth, fairness, common sense

Truth, fairness, common sense.

These are the three basic principles in interpreting the Constitution and in enforcing our laws.

The Philippines has about 15,000 laws – one for every two practicing lawyers, two-thirds of registered lawyers.

We have too many laws, too many lawyers, too many politicians – ironic, given the state of lawlessness and the rampant sense of impunity of our public officials. Impunity is freedom from punishment and accountability, no matter how gross or outrageous one’s misdeeds.

One public official who has an inimitable sense of impunity is Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte, 48, and a lawyer.

Before the Senate impeachment court, Sara is accused of four crimes:1) Misusing or pocketing P612.5 million of people’s money and producing 5,000 fake receipts to account for the missing monies; 2) bribing her subordinates so she could dictate on them during biddings (the DepEd she headed had the highest budgetary allocation); 3) unexplained wealth of P6.7 billion despite earning only P24 million as a public official and engaging in a sprawling range of businesses despite a constitutional ban against a vice president engaging in any business and 4) plotting to kill the President, the First Lady and the former speaker.

The late strongman Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. declared martial law, ruled like a dictator for 14 years out of 20 (1965-1986) and was said to have killed 3,000 victims. He was ousted by People Power I.

Sara has committed gross violations of the Constitution. Instead of being removed as VP, pronto, she thinks she should be the next president. Thus, she ignores the Senate impeachment court, procures the most brazen and rude defense counsel one can buy with one’s billions and denounces the Senate body as being under the control of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. That’s impunity.

Stung, the Senate impeachment court now wonders how many senators must vote to convict her. Is it two-thirds or 16 of all 24 senators?

Or is it lower than 16 since not all 24 senators can act as senator-judges by now? Two senators, Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta, are in jail for alleged plunder and suspended from acting as senators; that makes the “all” down to 22. One, Bato dela Rosa, is a fugitive from justice, hunted down by an international court for allegedly killing up to 30,000; 24 becomes 21. Another one, Loren Legarda, cannot be located because she is afraid of being arrested for alleged plunder. Her family’s solar company promised to roll out 12,000 megawatts of power and did not deliver; that’s plunder; 24 becomes 20. Two-thirds of 20 (.66x20) is 13.

The ruling Senate majority is already 13. If it wants to, the majority can convict Sara now. Based on the evidence presented so far.

Comes now retired Chief Justice Art Panganiban with the principles of truth, fairness and common sense.

Plainly, common sense means only 13 of 20 senators need to vote to convict.

Fairness means letting other views prosper. If one is whimsical or capricious and refuses to hear the other side/s, that’s grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court could be asked to intervene.

SC should not intervene. One, the senators are elected nationwide. Two, the SC justices are appointed by just one man – the president. And three, the justices and the president are subject to impeachment.

By the way, the Manila Overseas Press Club will have Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian as its guest of honor and speaker at the “MOPC Senate Night” on Friday, Sept. 25, 6 p.m., New World Hotel ballroom, Makati. I am chairman of the MOPC, Asia’s oldest press club.

Saturday, 11 a.m., Sept. 26, at the Manila Polo Club, the crusading Sen. Panfilo Lacson will update the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa) on the impeachment trial and the nation’s biggest scam ever, flood control. Retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno is chair of Philconsa.

Back to CJ Panganiban. In his presentation before the Senate Sept. 16, the eminent jurist made major points:

1. An impeachment trial is sui generis, one of a kind, unique because it has legal and political aspects. The trial is a traditional courtroom. Yet the senator-judges are not magistrates. Unaccustomed to the lonely perches of judges and justices. 2. Given this unique nature, how then should the Senate interpret the constitutional mandate that “… No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate?” (Constitution [Article XI, Section 3(6)]).

Per CJ Art , there are two ways to interpret the voting threshold: 1) verba legis – defined by the Court in Francisco v House of Representatives (Nov. 10, 2003, per J Conchita Carpio-Morales, en banc) as “… the words used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed” and 2) ratio legis est anima, defined in League of Cities v Comelec (Dec. 21, 2009, per J Presbitero Velasco Jr., en banc) as “the reason of the law is the soul of the law.”

3. With verba legis, the plain reading of two-thirds of 24 senators is mathematically 16. In the abstract, mathematics is an exact science. But reality is not always an abstract equation. Illustratively, one small drop of water added to another drop is not always two drops; it may result in one bigger drop of water.

Ratio legis est anima considers the intent and purpose of the constitutional provisions, the circumstances in which they operate and the goals they seek to achieve.

Which of these should our senator-judges employ? Neither. The Senate represents the electorate; it must reflect the common sense of the people, anchored on truth and fairness.

Trial is a search for truth through studying the documents and hearing the witnesses. In person. Fairness refers to “due process.”

Only through active, meaningful participation can the senators render a decision that is fair to the parties, fair to their peers and ultimately, fair to the people.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]