Danger signs

Lawyers really cannot help but notice some danger signs during this interesting period in our country’s history. Never before have they seen a President utilize to the hilt, the raw powers of his position in his single minded and unrelenting determination to hold government officials, past or present, accountable for alleged dishonest acts, corrupt practices, and other wrongdoings while in office. Of course to the public in general and to ordinary citizens, there is nothing dangerous or wrong with this seemingly admirable effort. In fact based on PNoy’s continued high trust ratings and popularity, it appears that people fully appreciate and support him in this endeavor.

But to companeros and companeras, certain measures adopted and actions taken by his administration are already bordering on the edge of the basic limits set forth in our constitution; or they may have actually transcended them. Most lawyers see these steps as “short cuts” and somewhat “revolutionary” in nature just to achieve some seemingly noble ends. Even to some concerned citizens closely monitoring the developments, this administration seems to be of the belief that the straight line or straight path (matuwid na daan) is the shortest distance between suspicion and conviction. So it is resorting to short cuts by taking the shortest route.

Undoubtedly, these short cuts take many forms but they may all result in a denial of due process of law like what happened to NBI Director Gatdula who was charged with extortion and kidnapping without the required preliminary investigation. But this denial of due process looms larger in the Corona impeachment case. Clear signs show that there are two trials now going on: the Senate trial and the trial by publicity especially in the on-going presentation of evidence to support Article II of the impeachment complaint. The main charge here is the alleged failure of Corona to disclose to the public his SALN. But the prosecution is now marking as evidence and showing to the whole world numerous titles of properties allegedly belonging to Corona based merely on the allegations in sub-paragraphs 3 and 4 of said article that they are “reported and “suspected” to be ill gotten wealth. The public impression immediately created by such move is that Corona has so many properties which he did not disclose in his SALN and which he could not have acquired with his salary. Indeed this is currently the talk of the town. Corona has already been condemned through trial by publicity as guilty of amassing ill gotten wealth while in office.

At this stage, the public in general does not care anymore whether these titles to the alleged properties “reported” and “suspected” as ill gotten wealth will be admitted by the Senate as proof of such fact; or whether the Senate will give any value or weight to such exhibits as evidence for the prosecution. The people seem to have already spoken without regard to the rules on the admissibility and weight of these marked exhibits when finally offered by the prosecution to prove one of their grounds for impeachment. To most people these rules are mere technicalities that will no longer affect their opinion formed through trial by publicity.

Since it is highly likely that our Senators-Jurors in the impeachment court may be also swayed by public opinion without regard to technicalities, another hot legal issue again presents itself. And this is whether the Impeachment Court is a superior body over the Supreme Court (SC). To see this issue clearer this email from a certain SF Monton ([email protected]) who sounds like a lawyer, may help. He said in part:

“Some quarters believe that the Senate Impeachment Court is superior in all respect to the Supreme Court with no less than one of the Senator-Jurors confirming it during his two-minute interpellations. His position was shared and corroborated by a number of good Senator-Jurors in their respective manifestations requiring the Clerk of Court of SC to produce the documents even before the latter could have sought prior authority to do so from the Supreme Court, a collegial body which has its own in-house rules governing such sensitive matters.

The type of political set-up we have is one that allows checks and balances to function and work in the most effective and efficient manner. Our three equal branches of government have their own respective mandates and authorities. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of legal issues arising from all matters under our Constitution, the basic law of the land and, for that matter, all legislations passed and approved by Congress. It is the highest judicial tribunal of the nation which has the monopoly of rendering the final interpretation of any contested legal issue.

The Senate, acting as an Impeachment Court, is only exercising one of its vital functions as mandated by the Constitution which is to hear and decide impeachment cases in the same way that the House of Representatives is exclusively empowered to initiate impeachment charges against impeachable officials. The Impeachment Court is not unlike any other special court tasked to handle specific cases such as the Sandiganbayan which is tasked with trying charges involving non-impeachable government officials.

The impression that the Impeachment Court is more powerful and authoritative than the Supreme Court could have arisen from the fact that now the Chief Justice of SC is placed on trial. But we must be reminded that the one on trial is not the Supreme Court but only the person holding the position Chief Justice.

I appeal to our Senator-Jurors to be very objective in their position. Apart from throwing clarificatory questions and manifestations, they should be very careful not to appear like they are counsels for a party to the case to avoid long-lasting negative consequences. In the case of the Clerk of Court’s testimony and presentation of evidence, I believe that the subpoena requiring her attendance should have been addressed to the Supreme Court, the institution where she works, an action normally done by a co-equal entity.

Yes, there must be mutual respect between the two institutions. While the Supreme Court should be more prudent not to interfere in the proceedings of the Impeachment Court, it is in fact mandated to see whether the impeachment at the Lower House was indeed in order or not”.

So the greater danger facing us is the possibility that the SC will take cognizance of any action filed before it questioning the ruling or decision of the Senate as impeachment court because of alleged grave abuse of discretion. If the SC reverses said ruling but the Senate refuses to obey the SC decision, who will enforce it? Will the AFP come into the picture? Here lies the greatest danger and the real crisis.