The basic Constitutional issue on Corona's impeachment

Supreme Court spokesman Atty. Jose Midas Marquez, in barefaced untruth, misled the TV viewers that SC Chief Justice Corona’s appointment is legal and constitutional. He facetiously argued that since the Judicial and Bar Council deliberated on Corona’s nomination, and recommended him among four aspirants, his appointment is valid.

Since CJ Corona won’t “walk away” from the impeachment fiasco, and his previous silence isn’t a “sign of weakness”, the Constitution is the only font of authority. Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution is quoted en toto: “Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public safety”.

It’s very clear, sans any ambiguity, that two months before the next presidential elections until the end of the out-going president’s term, the latter is prohibited from making appointments. The only exception is temporary appointments to executive positions, also subject to conditions. The basic rule of statutory construction, including Constitutional provisions, is when the statute is clear, what is not included is deemed excluded. Likewise, statutory construction mandates that expressed prohibitions – or those enjoining negative acts – are mandatory in nature.

In the case of Corona, his CJ appointment is definitely excluded, and does not fall under the expressed exception. No argument is legally tenable to sustain his appointment within the 2-month prohibition, despite Marquez’s ratiocination that due process by the JBC had been observed.

Even assuming that Corona’s application had long been filed with the JBC, and that, the JBC submitted his nomination before the 2-month prohibition, the same holds no water. The 2-month period is the reckoning time that the Constitution sets to prevent an outgoing or figurehead president from making “midnight” appointments. It also doesn’t matter should a scheming executive skirt the 2-month taboo, say, by antedating the appointment and publicized or made public the appointment later. It’s still within the prohibitive period. What matters is the specific act of appointment made within the banned time.

Subsequent events that further embroiled the situation followed, such as, the philippics of President Noynoy assailing Corona in the latter’s presence. Some say it was a spontaneous outburst over the piling of adverse SC actions, like, the thumbing down of the Truth Commission, the precipitate TRO to enable GMA to travel abroad, despite the DOJ’s watch list.

On President Noynoy’s speech, some consider it rude and “unpresidential,” and done at the wrong venue and unfit time. Others deem it as timely and made in the presence of the CJ that partook of Pres. Jack Kennedy’s profile in courage. Still others empathized with Corona who remained tactfully taciturn in his seat.

But now, the Lower House has voted with 188 solons for impeachment of Corona. It’s no longer necessary for its Committee on Justice to convene since more than just 1/3, but 188 signed, as provided in the revised House rules. And so, the House articles of impeachment are now with the Senate for trial, and, thereafter require two-thirds of the Senate for conviction!

The articles of impeachment include 8 grounds against Corona. The foremost ground could be culpable violation of the Constitution with regard to his appointment as violative of Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. If the Senate be sagaciously-minded and avoid delays, they should first tackle this fundamental issue of the constitutionality of the appointment, and if they find culpability in Corona’s appointment, then the impeachment case is laid to rest without deliberating further on the seven other peripheral issues as moot and academic.