Deus ex machina

In Greek and Roman mythology, the gods and goddesses in Olympus go down to earth in human and other forms to intervene in the affairs of the mortals. Inspired by mythology, writers often use the Latin phrase “Deus ex Machina” to resolve a complicated or even seemingly hopeless situation in the plots of their plays. Loosely translated, this phrase means “god from the machine.”

In modern theater, “Deus ex machina” now really uses machines to raise the actor above the rest of the characters in the stage.

We might be seeing such “god from the machine” in the teleserye or telenovela at the ongoing impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte. From seemingly insurmountable problems of alleged graft and corruption allegations against her, the embattled VP Sara is suddenly and conveniently being saved by the unexpected intervention of a powerful or divine force.

This is not to question the independence and integrity of the highest court of the land. But the Supreme Court (SC) is metaphorically alluded to as “the gods of Faura.” They refer to the 15 men and women justices who hold office at the classic grandeur building located at the corner of Padre Faura and Taft Avenue in Manila. 

 Headed by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, the men and women justices wearing their resplendent togas are ascribed to as the “gods of Faura.” As such, we respect the long-standing tradition of the SC justices to keep themselves incommunicado from the rest of the Filipinos. This is supposedly intended to prevent the SC justices from being swayed by public opinion or be influenced by factors outside the laws of the land, the highest of which is our country’s 1987 Constitution.

As the chief interpreter of the laws and the Constitution, the SC is the third co-equal branch of government, with Congress as the lawmaking body and the Executive Department to execute or implement the laws of the land.

Through her lawyers, VP Sara filed before the SC on Feb. 18 a petition for certiorari and prohibition versus her impeachment case. Her lawyers argued the fourth impeachment case violated the Constitution that bars more than one complaint filed within a one-year period. 

This is because there were three other impeachment cases filed one after the other against VP Sara in December last year at the House secretary-general’s office. But from out of nowhere, a fourth impeachment complaint was instead submitted to the Senate last Feb.5. Purportedly, all three complaints were put together in the seven Articles of Impeachment or charges against VP Sara.

In support of VP Sara, pro-Duterte groups led by lawyer Israelito Torreon, legal counsel of Pastor Quiboloy’s Kingdom of Jesus, followed suit. They filed their own petition to the SC seeking the same relief to declare void ab initio, or from the very start, the fourth impeachment complaint on VP Sara.

The questioned fourth impeachment complaint against VP Sara was voted upon in plenary session on the eve of their congressional recess for the election campaign period. More than one-third of House membership voted and approved its transmittal to the Senate.

The next day, House secretary-general Reginald Velasco turned over to the Senate the fourth version. With full media coverage, Velasco submitted the House impeachment documents just a few hours before the senators held their own last plenary session before the 19th Congress adjourned for recess. 

However, there was no official acknowledgment of the receipt of the impeachment complaint when Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero banged the gavel to signal the adjournment of their sessions that night. And from that point on, Escudero came under intense fire from all fronts for not acting “forthwith” in the conduct of the impeachment trial. As mandated by our Constitution, Escudero critics lectured the Senate chief that “forthwith” means “immediately.”

While there is no specific timeframe prescribed by this constitutional provision, Escudero naturally argued vigorously that this should not be simply interpreted by his critics and anti-VP Sara factions in and out of Congress.

A lawyer by profession, Escudero maintained the senators will follow and closely adhere to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and existing Senate impeachment processes and procedures.

Escudero finally convened the Senate as impeachment court three days before the sine die adjournment of the third and last regular session of the 19th Congress. Although all the senator-judges were able to take their oaths, the initial proceedings of the impeachment trial ended with two hanging questions. 

With 18 senator-judges voting in favor, the impeachment case was “returned” to the House, with a Senate Resolution asking two basic questions: if the House followed its own rules required on impeachment submission to the House Speaker and the House committee on justice and whether the incoming 20th Congress will continue and assume jurisdiction over the unfinished impeachment trial of VP Sara. 

In a notice dated July 8, the SC en banc consolidated the petitions filed by the lawyers of VP Sara and Torreon. The High Court required the House to submit information regarding the status of the first three impeachment complaints; the exact dates these were endorsed and whether the secretary general possesses discretion on when to transmit these to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The SC order to the House more or less mirrored the same questions raised by the Senate Resolution.

No one knew about the SC order until the Senate impeachment court official spokesman announced its transmittal to them. As it turned out, the House received its copy on that day. But it was only last Friday that Velasco confirmed its receipt.

The irony of it all, Velasco is now echoing the line of Escudero that the House does not need to act “immediately” on the three previous complaints. “It’s like ‘forthwith,’ ain’t it,” Velasco retorted.

But the “gods of Faura” are not into play of words. The SC gave the respondents a non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt of notice to submit their respective comments.