Law should be based on reason, not impulse

There are two types of wrong. In Latin, they distinguish both by the terms, Malum in se and malum prohibitum. The first means "wrong in itself" and applies to things that are evil even if no laws had been passed against them such as murder, theft and lying. The second refers to what is wrong merely because it has been prohibited. The classic example was Adam and Eve being driven from paradise simply because they ate a fruit that had been forbidden. The dividing line is the moral cleavage that makes right eternally good and wrong always bad.

It seems to us as if the current controversy concerning Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.’s case was decided on something that should be classified as malum prohibitum. We, however, are the first to say that the Supreme Court was right when it declared that the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Davide was unconstitutional. Under our Constitution, the House of Representatives has the exclusive prerogative to initiate all impeachment cases, but it also clearly states that "no impeachment proceeding shall be presented against the same official more than once within a period of one year." This also clearly means that the very same impeachment case can be filed after the grace period of one year has passed. So it is a matter of time when the controversial impeachment case against Chief Justice Davide will be filed.

The thing is that the deciding factor was not on the merits and demerits of the case itself. Many people are complaining that the legislature has been doing more investigating than legislating. The defense given for this is that the investigations conducted are in aid of legislation. Will any legislation result from the outcome of the Davide impeachment case? How did the filing of two impeachment cases within a period of one year become part of our constitution? What was the purpose of said law? The basis of all laws should be reason. What was the rationale for such a law?

On the positive side, the Davide controversy has shown that we have a government of laws. The law was followed to the letter. Still, this is a good instance to point out what a writer named Whately once said: "Nothing but the right can ever be expedient since that can never be true expediency which would sacrifice a greater good to a less."

We don’t recall of any instance when a Chief Justice had to face possible impeachment. What we find sad is that in most reports the story has been focused on the pros and cons of impeachment. What the public should know is the story of the impeachment itself. The issue is whether there is indeed cause to impeach Davide, not whether he can be impeached twice within the same year. As filed by Tarlac Rep. Gilbert Teodoro and Camarines Sur. Rep. Felix Fuentebella, the impeachment complaint against Davide is over his alleged misuse of the P3.9-billion judiciary development fund. That is the crux of the case and we believe that it will be better for the good of all that this matter be clarified once and for all.

Chief Justice Davide should welcome the opportunity to be able to clear his name in a proper venue. He cannot be impeached till the grace period of one year since his last impeachment has come to pass. But he can account for the use of the P3.9-billion judiciary development fund and then may be there will be no impeachment case at all.