Conjoined Legislatwins

You probably don’t care about who gets to vote in the Judicial and Bar Council, but definitely, members of Congress are at present tearing out their hair and wailing as a result of the just-released decision of the Supreme Court limiting both houses of Congress to only one representative.

It was inevitable.  After all, the Constitution is clear that there should only be “a representative” from Congress, not two.  If the Supreme Court had reached any other result, it would have had to resort to legal gymnastics of the sort that raises eyebrows and induces snide comments at Integrated Bar conventions, including such strategies as divining the obscure intent of the framers and applying long-dead legal maxims.  Now that the Supreme Court has firmly dealt with the issue, the ball is back in Congress’ court.

Of course, the Senate and the House of Representatives would much rather have the cozy deal that they brokered many years ago, where they decided they could ignore the plain text of the Constitution and agreed that not only could they both nominate representatives to the Council, but also, both their representatives get the right to vote.  This way, the power to vet nominees to the Supreme Court (aka opportunities to trade favors and/or inveigle nominees into deep pockets) gets exercised by the upper and the lower houses.  Never mind that they just increasing the Council’s composition to an even-numbered eight members, as opposed to the original odd-numbered seven where ties can always be broken.

But since the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can’t do this, the separate ego-filled houses of Congress are now forced to deal with each other to pick a common choice, the same situation which they refused to squarely face more than a decade ago.  Want to bet how soon they can arrive at a compromise? 

Naturally each house would want the Council member to come from its ranks – why let the other house wield all that juicy influence?   Expect cocky posturing from the politicos, as each house sizes up the other to see what arguments they will float, and heavy negotiations, as each tries to convince the other that the representative should be its pick.    

Meanwhile, they’re also going to explore all other alternatives, never mind how hare-brained it is. There’s the “nasty ogre” tactic, which is the stupid idea of threatening to bring another impeachment complaint against all the Justices that voted in favor of the ruling.  (Note how Justice Mariano Del Castillo, who is already facing an impeachment complaint, voted with the minority.)  It’s exactly the reaction of a child with a toy taken away from it – tantrums and outbursts against the Supreme Court. 

Does Congress really think it’s a good idea to impeach more justices, merely for doing what they’re supposed to do (interpret the law)?  And this time, not just one justice, but all seven of them who voted in favor of the ruling, are on the firing line?  A nuclear solution for a trifling inconvenience.

Then, there’s the “prolonging the agony” tactic, which is filing a motion for reconsideration with the same court that has already decided the case.  Unfortunately, as the Supreme Court has flip-flopped so many times, especially in the cityhood cases, this is a hope that’s always floated in front of losing litigants.  It’s fortunate that the court has already pre-empted the legal limbo that would have resulted from a motion for recon, as it ordered that its decision would already be executor. Meaning, the Council has to lose one member.

But of course, the Council isn’t, on its own, going to pick between Senator Francis Escudero and Congressman Niel Tupas, Jr., and select which one stays and which one goes.  It’s going to have to be Congress that makes the selection.  And until it does, perhaps, we’ll be stuck with a six member Council for the foreseeable future.