'To be, or not to be - that is the question!'

To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them? To die; to sleep; no more; and by a sleep, to say we end the heart-ache, and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to,

Tis’ a consummation devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep; to sleep, perchance to dream; ay, there’s the rub; for in that sleep of death, what dreams may come, when we have shuffled off this mortal coil,must give us pause: There’s the respect that makes calamity of so long life: for who would bear the whips and scorns of time, the oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, the pangs of despised love, the law’s delay, the insolence of Office, and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes, when he himself might his quietus make with a bare Bodkin?

Who would Fardels bear, to grunt and sweat under a weary life, but that the dread of something after death, the undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveller returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of.

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, and thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied o’er, with the pale cast of thought, and enterprises of great pith and moment, with this regard their currents turn awry,and lose the name of action…

This is not a monologue written by or for the Chief Justice. It was the opening phrase of a soliloquy in William Shakespeare’s play Hamlet. Of course, there have been many interpretations made on this speech of Hamlet – about love, endurance, morality, suicide, etc. But what brings this to mind is the present state of mind of Justice Corona. He is probably pondering right now on what action to take. Hence, the question: To be or not to be?

What is the most honorable action for Chief Justice Corona to take at this point in time? Should he do a hara-kiri (seppuku), a ritual form of suicide traditionally done by Japanese samurais as commanded by the government in the cases of disgraced officials? Should he try to disappear and go into hiding until the coast is clear like the Lacson escape? Or should he do an act of bravery and openly present himself in the witness stand like our national hero, Jose Rizal or Joseph Estrada who courageously faced the music?

The problem with Justice Corona is that he has been giving too many speeches, gathering too many supporters and acting like the god of war, Ares who used to be the most exalted among the Olympian gods but in the end became the most hated. Corona tries to be too righteous but in retrospect is such a coward in proving his innocence. If you have nothing to hide then present all your records and files. You don’t even need the Supreme Court to issue a subpoena to protect you. What a wimp!

By the way, King Midas being the front liner of the SC will not be able to turn everything into gold. He better pack his bags and head for home before he adds more stain to the already tarnished walls of the SC. In other words, the rest of the SC justices better do something right now to save the Supreme Court. Don’t just sit there – do something!

The impeachment trial is taking a toll. The defense team has sent an urgent request to the Supreme Court to issue a restraining order to halt the impeachment proceedings. This has posed a question in our minds as to who should be followed, the legislature or the judiciary. What is going to happen now?

The 1987 Constitution provides for the separation of powers. The legislative department enacts and creates laws, the executive department executes these laws and the judicial branch interprets the law. Hence, if the Supreme Court interprets the law on foreign currency deposits to such effect that any form of disclosure is a violation of the law, it can validly do so pursuant to its powers and can issue an injunction even to a co-equal branch of government under the principle of checks and balance.

Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. dean emeritus of the Ateneo Law School and member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission that drafted the present Constitution stressed that when it comes to the interpretation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Supreme Court always has the final say. It is tasked to implement the law if clear and interpret it if there are gray areas. The issuance of the TRO does not question the legality and/or the so-called superiority of the impeachment court. The petition filed by the defense requesting the SC to hold in abeyance the opening of the foreign deposit accounts of Corona pending determination of the legality of such opening shows that there is seemingly a doubt as to the interpretation of the law on foreign currency deposits. It seems that the law states it cannot be opened even through and by a subpoena of a court.

No court can violate such law. Not even the impeachment court. More importantly the impeachment court cannot be the arbiter of the law. It cannot interpret what is the law. Such is the sole jurisdiction of the SC. There is therefore no conflict between the impeachment court trying the CJ and the SC implementing and/or interpreting the law.

Bernas also argued that “No branch of government is superior over the others. Only the Constitution is superior.”

The Senate should respect the SC order. The Supreme Court must be upheld most zealously and guarded with eternal vigilance. It is therefore fitting, and in line with the steadying and purifying influence that the other justices and SC community take an active part in keeping the honor of this branch. It is their duty to readily join forces to combat oppression, immorality, corruption, social evils and political atrocities within the SC.

They should be supporters and protectors of democratic institutions and the democratic way of life, knowing that these, better than any other social order, will afford to them and particularly to their children equal opportunities and equal rights.

Unfortunately, in the struggle for supremacy, political parties and aspirants to public office too often disregard the principles of true democracy. They forget, or if they remember it matters not to them in the least, that every foul means employed, every deceit or fraud or act of injustice committed, to win is sheer treason to the Constitution and to the people. It is the duty of every public servant, man or woman to oppose and combat every attempt to employ unlawful and undemocratic means to win an impeachment trial. It is a duty everyone owes to his Country. Not even party considerations should stand in the way of such a sacred obligation.

Let us bear in mind that a true democratic representative of the people is not “the cringing, fawning tool of the Caucus, or of the mob, but he who rises to the full stature of political manhood” who’s paramount and supreme interest is that of the nation.