According to opposition Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr., both magistrates were given the crucial choice by Charter change advocates at the House of Representatives or face possible impeachment proceedings.
"It’s inhibition or impeachment," Pimentel said as he clarified his earlier statement that magistrates normally inhibit themselves in deliberations of certain cases because of conflict of interest.
"Supreme Court justices may inhibit themselves; that’s their prerogative," Pimentel told the weekly Sulo Hotel news forum yesterday.
Pimentel pointed out some cases where Supreme Court justices usually inhibit themselves out of delicadeza.
In one recent case, Pimentel said, a prominent SC justice inhibited himself after his son was implicated in a Bar examination controversy.
But in the case of Sulong ng Bayan, the group directed its petition to Panganiban and Carpio, Pimentel noted.
The group wanted the two senior magistrates to inhibit themselves from the deliberations on the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners Sigaw ng Bayan and Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) seeking the reversal of the Oct. 25 ruling that dismissed people’s initiative as a means to amend the 1987 Constitution.
Lawyers Ferdinand Topacio and Eliseo Ocampo filed the motion in behalf of Sulong ng Bayan seeking the inhibition of the two senior justices.
They claimed Panganiban was biased against the people’s initiative while Carpio used "harsh language" which was uncalled for in writing the decision that junked the petition.