With these words, acting Chief Justice Josue Bellosillo defended himself and seven of his colleagues in the High Tribunal yesterday from the impeachment complaint filed against them by ousted President Joseph Estrada.
"That can never happen, I think," Bellosillo said, when asked about who could replace the SC justices if the impeachment complaint prospered.
He added: "We don’t consider this serious because, as far as we know, we have not done anything wrong" in administering the oath of office to then Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo at the height of the EDSA II uprising that ousted Estrada in January 2001.
"This question has been settled a long time ago," he said.
While Bellosillo clarified that they have yet to receive a copy of the complaint against them, he told reporters that it was too late in the day for such action, since the legitimacy of the Arroyo administration has been recognized by all sectors of society and the international community.
"I don’t really know what are the allegations in the complaint," Bellosillo said. "Well, without necessarily saying we are prejudging the case, as far as I am concerned, we have not done anything that would cause our impeachment from office."
"I don’t know if it should bother us at all. As far as I’m concerned, as I have said, we have not done anything wrong," he said.
"This is part of our job." Bellosillo added. "We are always threatened."
He said that if the current controversy arose from the accounts of the EDSA II popular uprising which SC Justice Artemio Panganiban wrote in his book "Reforming the Judiciary," the whole Supreme Court could not be held liable for coming out with a resolution based on the justices’ individual opinions.
"Perhaps this is what Justice Panganiban thought, we are not bound by that... kanya-kanyang opinion iyan, eh (each had his or her own opinion). How can I be bound by Justice Panganiban’s pronouncements? That is his own opinion," Bellosillo said.
"The statement of Justice Panganiban is not a resolution of the court, you have to bear in mind. So we have nothing to do with that... That is in his book. I haven’t even read that portion of the book," he said.
Bellosillo also countered allegations that the appearance of the SC bench at the EDSA Shrine during the uprising to attend the oath-taking of President Arroyo was a violation of the code of judicial conduct.
"Was that not a historical event that each one is entitled to witness? I think it was. Everybody was free to go to EDSA and witness the occasion. Nobody fetched us, as far as I know," Bellosillo said.
He said the SC decision declaring the Arroyo administration legitimate is already final and that both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed a resolution recognizing the legality of the new administration.
"If our judgment has become final, that is final. And we can’t reopen that. I think the impeachment is another thing, if we did wrong, then, maybe, we can be impeached — although I don’t think that we did wrong in that case," he added.
He also said he cannot see any reason for the magistrates of the High Bench to vacate their posts as recommended by former senator Rene Saguisag, Estrada’s former lawyer.
Several attempts to impeach the members of the SC have been made in the past, Bellosillo said, but none succeeded, "because, as far as I am concerned, we do our best to uphold the law."
He added that there were no formal impeachment proceedings against any of the justices.
"As far as I can remember, any effort to go into that (impeachment of SC justices) failed, never reached second base, or even first base." He does not expect the impeachment complaint to be filed against them.
On March 2, 2001, the SC voted 13-0 to uphold the legitimacy of the Arroyo administration. Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. and Panganiban inhibited themselves from the resolution of the case.
In dismissing the petition filed by Estrada challenging the constitutionality of Mrs. Arroyo’s accession to the Presidency, the High Court said Mrs. Arroyo was de jure (by law) President of the Philippines.
The SC rejected Estrada’s argument that he "only took a temporary leave of absence due to his inability to govern."
On April 3, 2001, the tribunal again unanimously voted 13-0 to dismiss Estrada’s petition for reconsideration of the March 2, 2001 decision.
Meanwhile, chief special prosecutor Dennis Villa Ignacio branded Estrada’s moves to impeach the SC justices as a diversionary tactic designed to "take focus away from the plunder case" filed against Estrada. "These are dead issues. They seem to have given up on the legal battle and have now shifted to the political arena."
"Apparently they cannot present (a) good defense for Erap (Estrada). If you are innocent or have a good defense, you will insist on a speedy trial," he said. "Everyday, they say they have evidence, but, now that it is their time to present evidence, they are doing all these dilatory tactics."
Prospero Crescini, one of Estrada’s court-appointed lawyers, acknowledged earlier that Estrada was "risking conviction" when he made the declaration that he is immune from suit because he is still president and that he does not intend to rebut the corruption charges against him.
"He’s inviting conviction," Crescini had said. "It’s a long shot because, by that time, the evidence of the prosecution will be uncontradicted."
The hands of Crescini and Estrada’s other court-appointed counsels — Manuel Pamaran, Noel Malaya and Irene Jurado — are still, figuratively, tied at this point because Estrada hired Ateneo Law School lecturer Alan Paguia as his new lawyer and Paguia wants the court-appointed lawyers off the case.
Paguia also said the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the plunder, illegal use of the Jose Velarde alias and perjury charges filed against Estrada.
"There is no need for me to present evidence because I’m immune from suit. That’s why I don’t recognize the proceedings (in the Sandiganbayan)," Estrada said in Filipino last week. "I am still the legitimate President of the Republic of the Philippines. I was just unconstitutionally removed."