Democracy’s last bastion

Never has our Supreme Court been busier than during these times. For the month of September alone, a total of ten cases have been set for oral arguments. As far as I know, cases are not usually set for oral arguments. Instead the parties are just required to submit their respective memoranda. But for these ten cases, oral arguments have been called obviously because our Justices found them to be of transcendental importance affecting the public at large and thus have to be resolved urgently. Setting cases for oral arguments likewise enables our justices to remove certain hazy matters still bugging their minds and to clarify from the parties themselves some ill-defined issues. It is therefore a mode of simplifying and limiting the issues to be submitted for resolution while at the same time enabling the public to understand and be well informed of said issues up for decision.

Three of the cases already heard by the SC last September 21, 2006 involve the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the arrest of its Chairman, Camilo L. Sabio who was cited in contempt for refusing to appear in a Senate inquiry regarding alleged irregularities in some government-sequestered corporations. After hearing the parties to the said cases, the principal issues have been narrowed down to the following: (1) whether the publication of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation is essential to their effectivity; if so whether the Rules have been so published; and whether their posting in the Senate website constitutes sufficient publication; (2) whether the Senate Committees are vested with the power of contempt; if so whether they can issue warrants of arrest; (3) whether Section 4(b) of Executive Order No. 1 is constitutional; and (4) whether the Senate Committees in these cases have complied with the requirements set forth by the SC in Senate vs. Ermita.

Issues number 1 and 4 above are interrelated as they involve the application of the SC ruling in Senate vs. Ermita regarding E.O. 464. The SC in said decision ruled that for a legislative inquiry to be constitutional, the intended legislation or law for which the inquiry is being conducted must be specified; the rules of the inquiry must be sufficiently published; the inquiry must not cover matters within the scope of "executive privilege" as therein defined; and the rights of the persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries must be respected. In these cases the SC will just determine whether the inquiries being conducted by the Senate Committees have complied with said requirements. The resolution of these issues may not set a precedent anymore because the Ermita case has already set the precedent. More vital and precedent setting perhaps in this age of cyber space is the resolution of the question on whether website posting of the Senate Rules constitutes sufficient publication.

Issue number 2 acquires significance as it would clarify and settle once and for all perhaps the legislative body’s power of contempt including the power to order the arrest of persons invited to the legislative inquiries in aid of legislation, as a mode to compel attendance. Issue number 3 on the constitutionality of Section 4(b) of E.O. 1 is actually the crux of the controversy. It involves a seeming clash between the constitutional provision granting the legislature the power to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation against the E.O. exempting the PCGG commissioners and their staff from such legislative inquiry on cases within its cognizance. This issue came up apparently because the PCGG chose to invoke Section 4 (b) for the first time. The resolution of this issue will therefore lay to rest the validity of this section of E.O. 1 and perhaps define in clear and definite manner the meaning of "in aid of legislation".

Two other cases set for oral arguments tomorrow are those concerning the peoples’ initiative. These cases will either confirm or revoke the existing SC ruling issued way back in 1997 declaring R.A. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act, inadequate to cover the system of initiative as mode to amend the Charter. The SC is called upon to rule on whether the Comelec was correct in dismissing the petition filed by "Sigaw" and "Ulap" allegedly containing the signatures of 6,327,952 registered voters asking for a shift from presidential to parliamentary system and presented to it for verification.

Having a busy and active SC that does not dither in facing the issues brought before it is a good sign for democracy in this part of the world. It means that the people still trust our judiciary and our justice system. As long as the SC maintains its independence as a separate branch of government by upholding the rule of law and justice in all its decisions, or in other words, as long as it performs its primary role as the last bastion of democracy then the Thailand coup experience we will never be duplicated here.

E-mail us at [email protected]