I like the statement put out by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on the Supreme Court’s impeachment ruling. It is sober, non-partisan and temperate.
The lawyers’ group warned against efforts to stir public defiance of the Supreme Court ruling. These efforts could lead to “a dangerous erosion of the legal order.”
The IBP statement reminds citizens: “Disagreement with the Court’s reasoning is part of democracy. But to incite repudiation of its authority, or to call for outright defiance, undermines the very foundations of our legal institutions.”
Furthermore, the statement continues, “Every adverse ruling cannot become an invitation to disobey. The law must not become the first casualty of dissent.”
Since the Court issued its ruling on the validity of the impeachment complaint filed against Vice President Sara Duterte, a concert of dissenting voices rose – a large part of it politically orchestrated. A major portion of the concert of dissent goes overboard: impugning the honor and integrity of the nation’s highest court, imagining some conspiracy theory at play or, in the most specious way, assigning ill motive to the Court’s ruling.
In our democracy, dissent is encouraged. But it is presumed the dissent is well intentioned rather than mere partisan attack, that it is founded on well-reasoned arguments and not on mere rant. Irresponsible dissent taxes our people’s confidence in our institutions, depletes our civic discourse and inflicts long-term damage on our political culture. See how Donald Trump and his MAGA cultists have warped American discourse.
In the face of concerted efforts to discredit the Supreme Court, a group of lawyers led by Ferdinand Topacio took it upon themselves to file contempt charges against the most unreasonable personalities involved in maligning the judicial branch. This is responsible citizenship in action.
A cost must be imposed on the intemperate.
A small group of senators have tried to pass a resolution urging the chamber to postpone any efforts to scuttle the impeachment court until the various motions for reconsideration are processed at the Supreme Court. One of them is actually a trained lawyer who must have forgotten a basic principle learned at law school: a Supreme Court ruling, until it is actually reversed, must be enforced. Such ruling has the weight of law.
More disturbing are the criticisms of the Court emanating from a retired justice. Having once donned the robes and spoken with the authority of the tribunal, it is a little awkward for a former justice to indulge in a roadshow against the ruling. He is no longer entitled to issue a dissenting opinion.
There is a reason why ex-presidents refrain from commenting on the job performed by the sitting one. They are not entitled to look over their successor’s shoulders and make their own appraisals in real time. This is considered bad form. The behavior is clearly intemperate.
In this case, the net effect of the misplaced dissent is to undermine public confidence in the work of the Court. When such respect is undermined, the entire justice system becomes vulnerable. When that happens, ordinary citizens expecting justice will be left unprotected.
The judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government. The legislature controls the purse. The executive commands the awesome enforcement apparatus of government. The judiciary relies almost entirely on commanding public respect.
Former magistrates may participate in Supreme Court deliberations, but only if they are invited in as friends of the court. Otherwise, upon retirement, their legal opinions stand on nothing. The settlement of constitutional issues will be too tedious if everyone is allowed to put his finger into the soup. The Supreme Court is not an open house event.
Whatever disagreements some might have about the Court’s impeachment decision, there is a manner for properly expressing them. Motions for reconsideration may be filed. But in the end, only the Court speaks on matters falling within its competence. It has the last word. This is the source of its majesty.
It has always been said that if you have five lawyers in a room, you will likely get six opinions. Lawyers are by nature argumentative. But there are circumstances when they must exercise restraint as a matter of professional discipline and courtesy. The impeachment ruling is one of those.
The man on the street is entitled to mimic lawyers and peddle their own two centavos worth on the ruling. That is the essence of democracy.
But they do not have the right to malign the Court without basis. This is plainly civic irresponsibility. The debate on the ruling invites the uninitiated; but the process for resolving the issues is not an open-ended derby.
Those who disagree with the Court’s impeachment ruling must also yield to the fact that the magistrates’ reading of events is the only one that matters in the end. This is how our democracy survives.
The dissent in this case happens through distorted lenses. Much has been said about the need to enforce accountability among those who govern us. But little is said about the egregious bribery of legislators that has characterized this impeachment exercise in particular and other previous impeachment exercises. This solemn procedure of removing an elected official has become a method for cornering the cornucopia of state resources.
Apart from being a tool for politicians to game the system, impeachment has become a plaything for political groups in search of a reason for being.