Impeachment Court adopts CJ Davide's opinon

The Senate Impeachment Court has amended its ruling, adopting the combined opinion of three chief justices Davide, Jr., Puno and Panganiban. By a vote of 13-1-6, the threshold vote now is no longer 16 but two thirds of Senate members who are not physically and legally incapacitated. That means senators de la Rosa, Estrada, Marcoleta and even Legarda may no longer be included in the counting of the base for the two-thirds vote.

Of the four amici curiae, who either appeared personally or submitted written opinions to the Senate Impeachment Court, it is our considered opinion that the 18-paged well-written and sufficiently justified dissertation of Cebu's own learned and erudite retired Chief Justice Hilario Gilbolingo Davide Jr. was the best and the most persuasive of all. Our own Cebuano former chief Justice has given the best and most exhaustive and persuasive of all the opinions.

With due respect to the three others, including former Chief Justices Reynato Puno and Artemio Panganiban, as well as to retired associate Justice Adolf Ascuna, only CJ Davide Jr. has had the distinguished credentials of having been both a duly elected delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention as well as a well-chosen and deservedly appointed commissioner of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. CJ Davide Jr was the only one among the four who served in all the three branches of government, legislative, judiciary, executive and also in the constitutional commission as well as the foreign service.

CJ Davide Jr was not only associate justice of the highest court of the land, appointed by president Corazon Aquino) but also Chief Justice (named by president Joseph Estrada), but also a former Comelec Chair and ambassador extraordinary plenipotentiary (appointed by president Benigno Aquino III) and even chosen to head the defunct Truth Commission. He served in the 1971 Concon with the highest degree of integrity and diligence, as well as in the 1986 Concom. As SC justice and later as CJ, he penned landmark decisions including the writ of kalikasan entitled Oposa vs Factoran, GR no 101083 promulgated on July 30, 1993.

In his amicus opinion, CJ Davide held that the phrase in Article XI, section 3 "all members of the Senate should be interpreted as to refer only to the senators who are legally and physically capacitated to participate and vote on the final; issue of conviction or acquittal. Thus, senators Bato de la Rosa, Jinggoy Estrada and even Loren Legarda if she keeps on extending her leave of absence and if she persists in staying abroad outside the coercive powers of the impeachment court should not be included in computing the two-thirds vote. His opinion is well-anchored on pertinent and compelling jurisprudence and law.

CJ Davide Jr also opined that the landmark decision of Jose Avelino vs Mariano Jesus Cuenco is applicable not directly but as an added guiding light to the determination of two-thirds vote. In that case Senator Vicente Sotto was confined in a hospital and Senator Tomas Confesor was in the USA. In determining the quorum, the two were excluded. Cuenco was elected as senate president with a vote of 12 Liberal senators against 112 Nacionalista. CJ Davide also declared that senator judges who were not able to attend the proceedings and listened to the witnesses should not be allowed to vote in the final ruling.

It is the well-considered view of many members of the Bar, including us who are law professors, law deans, law authors and law scholars, that the Davide Jr opinion is the best and should be adopted by the Court. How about you, dear readers. What sayest thou? We applaud the Senate Impeachment Court for doing the right thing at the right time for the right reason.