Risky situations

As in a basketball game where the competing teams unconditionally agree to abide by its rules while playing in court, so it is in a legal joust between parties who go to a court of justice.In both competitions, the basic rule is: El fallo del juez es inapelable.Miko, one of my ten grandsons, only eight years old, seldom joins sports contests precisely because he is fully aware of this rule and does not want to be at the receiving end of a judgment call.Estrada and his lawyer, Rene Saguisag (Rene), especially the latter, are presumed to know and to have agreed to such common rule which a mere child already knows and accepts. Otherwise, they should not have come before the Supreme Court to plead their case on non-resignation of Estrada from the Presidency of the land.

A party comes to court not only "with clean hands" but also with full knowledge of the risk of losing despite a firm belief in the righteousness of his cause, and of the risk of winning despite a dire assessment of the crookedness of his position. Estrada and his lawyers, particulalry the latter are supposed to have assumed these risks when they sought the ruling of the Supreme Court on their stubborn stand that the Presidency was not vacant when President GMA took her oath of office.Having assumed both, they could not now complain if one of these risks happens.

Estrada and Rene would like to impeach eight justices of the Supreme Court for, among others, betrayal of public trust by allegedly playing partisan politics to legalize his ouster in a popular uprising last January 20, 2001. Yet not a whimper has been heard from the public whose trust was supposedly betrayed by the Supreme Court after it came out with its decisions on March 2 and April 3, 2001.Not even from Estrada’s adoring fans. Very much unlike the massive upheaval of the populace on January 16-20 2001, when the "craven eleven" in the Senate threw a monkey wrench on his impeachment trial for betrayal of public trust.If there is any betrayal of trust committed by the eight justices here,it is nothing else but their repudiation of the private expectations of Estrada and his lawyers for a favorable ruling. It is a betrayal of a private, not public, trust.

Rene and his client assert that the eight justices committed the impeachable offense of culpable violation of the Constitution when they conspired to oust him by attending the historic oath taking of President GMA on January 20,2001 even if there was yet no vacancy. But they conveniently forget that the confluence of events during those crucial moments were fast approaching a revolutionary situation. Were it not for the presence of the justices the Constitution would not have been saved and the orderly transition of power pursuant to its provisions would not been assured.To be sure,all the justices of the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed the authority of Chief Justice Davide, Jr. to administer the oath of office to then Vice President GMA as the new president succeeding Estrada without prejudice to any justiciable controversy that may subsequently be raised. If the Supreme Court justices did not have that sense of patriotism to attend that historic gathering, I wonder whether Rene and his client would still be able to do what they are doing now.

The impeachment charges against the eight justices clearly stem from the decision of the Supreme Court finding Rene’s client to have resigned as President before GMA took her oath on January 20,2001. Mr. Saguisag cannot deny that this issue of whether his client has resigned or not, is a justiciable controversy within the exclusive jurisdiction of the judiciary, a separate and independent branch of government. In fact Estrada himself recognized the court’s jurisdiction by asking it to decide the controversy. Asking Congress to kick out the justices on the ground that they decided against him, is an intrusion into a purely judicial function.Congress may be violating the principle of separation of powers if it entertains the impeachment complaint.It will just contribute to,instead of helping stop the erosion of our institutions.

Rene’s courage of conviction in taking risks (even the risk of winning) may really be commendable and is worth a second or a third glance. But his discretion (or indiscretion) raises a lot of eyebrows.He could have used the better part of his courage to consider and accept the truth that Estrada has resigned and that while Estrada is now having second thoughts about it, the ultimate issue still boils down to whether or not he is guilty of the plunder charges pending before the Sandiganbayan.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]