Defiant and dangerous

The existence and viability of our democratic system of government essentially depend on a document known as the Constitution, more specifically the 1987 Constitution. If there is no such document, or if it is blatantly violated, or lightly regarded, our democracy will not work, or will eventually collapse.

Hence, to ensure strict compliance or utmost respect for its provisions, the framers of this fundamental law have incorporated several measures for this purpose. Foremost among these measures is the designation of a particular branch of government vested with the power to uphold and protect it. This is no other than the Judicial Branch with the Supreme Court on top of it.

Under the charter therefore, the Supreme Court is endowed with the power of judicial review or the power to look into the acts and conducts of the Executive and Legislative branches of government and determine whether they are in conformity with the fundamental law of the land. In fact under the present charter, the SC can even look into the purely political acts of these two political branches of government and find out whether they are committed with grave abuse of discretion, or lack, or in excess of jurisdiction amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

When the Supreme Court exercises this power, it is not asserting its supremacy over the Executive and the Legislative branches of the government; it is merely upholding the supremacy of our Constitution, seeing to it that the “rule of law” still prevails in our democratic republic. Hence the Supreme Court has been correctly dubbed not only as the “highest court of the land,” the “court of last resort,” but also as the “last bulwark of democracy.”

Of course the Supreme Court can effectively exercise this power of judicial review only if its independence is guaranteed and safeguarded. And so the constitution likewise contains provisions for this purpose Among them are the fiscal autonomy it now enjoys and its administrative control over the Judiciary Development Fund.

Unfortunately, PNoy is now openly and blatantly undermining the supremacy of our charter and the rule of law as well as the SC’s independence and power to uphold such supremacy following his setbacks in the PDAF and the DAP cases. First, he publicly and contemptuously assailed the SC for declaring these pork barrel funds unconstitutional. Then as it now turns out, he has defied the SC ruling on the PDAF as revealed by two members of his cabinet in an executive session where they assured members of the House of Representatives that said pork barrel still exist. Lastly, he has instigated his allies in Congress to take steps to amend the charter for the purpose, among others, of clipping the the SC’s power of judicial review.

Undoubtedly PNoy’s moves here endanger one of the very pillars of our democratic country. They are not the acts of the president of a country whose main job is precisely to uphold the rule of law and to protect and defend the Constitution. PNoy is really ill advised in this regard especially when he publicly announced that he has no objection to change the Constitution not only to clip the powers of the SC but also and worse yet, to extend his term of office.

Indeed, no less than a close friend of his family, CBCP President, Archbishop Socrates Villegas was already forced to come out openly against these moves of PNoy. Citing “The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church” Archbishop Villegas says:

“In a State ruled by law the power to inflict punishment is correctly entrusted to the courts. In defining the proper relationships between the legislative, executive and judicial powers, the Constitutions of modern States guarantee the judicial power the necessary independence in the realm of law.”

For the judiciary to be fair, it must be free, and it cannot be free if its members are harassed by threats and intimidation and if those who serve on the Bench and as personnel of the court must be in constant dread of a diminution in benefits and privileges.

This is exactly the situation that seems to be dawning on the judiciary in the Philippines. Of late, we have been troubled by threats leveled particularly against members of the Supreme Court for what some legislators perceive to be the refusal of the Chief Justice to heed a summons by Congress to appear, and for the supposed misuse of the Judiciary Development Fund created by Presidential Decree No. 1949.

We urge respect for the Judiciary, precisely because it does not have the means to defend itself. We urge it also for the sake of the nation that must always hold its judiciary in highest regard and esteem. The courtesies that are due the heads of the government’s coordinate branches should, at all times, be maintained and the independence of the judiciary, preserved. This is not only the letter of the Constitution. It is its spirit as well. It is also a moral requirement, for judging, which is the principal concern of the courts, is the moral act of distributive justice: allocating rights and obligations.

An independent judiciary is the key safeguard of people’s rights against the heavy hand of the State and the caprice of officials and private individuals. It is this protective institution that is assailed when justices and judges are needlessly threatened with removal from office when politicians are displeased by their decisions or the considered positions they take!

The Judiciary Development Fund, generated from docket fees and other sources, has, by law, been placed within the administrative control of the Chief Justice. Let it be so. This is not to say that the Fund can be used in whatever manner the Chief Justice or the Supreme Court may be pleased to use it. The Constitution has so wisely provided for a system by which all government offices, the judiciary included, are subject to audit. But we consider it repugnant to the very idea of the autonomy that the judiciary should enjoy for the Chief Justice to be asked to account to a congressional committee for the use of the funds. Yes, the Chief Justice owes it to the people to give an accounting of the use of the funds, but through the office tasked by the Constitution to conduct such an audit.

We stand with the judiciary in its struggle to maintain its independence.”

E-mail: [email protected]