In the midst of the testimony of Philippine Savings Bank president Pascual Garcia III, the Supreme Court granted his bank’s petition for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the disclosure of SC Chief Justice Renato Corona’s dollar accounts. In an 8-5 decision with 2 abstentions, the SC invoked RA 6426, the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of 1974 (as amended by PD 1035 and PD 1246), a Marcos-era law absolutely prohibiting the disclosure of FCDU accounts without the consent of the depositor.
Thus, two schools of thoughts or doctrines will be tested in the coming week. One, is the constitutionally mandated Senate impeachment court with “sole power” to try impeachment cases subject to the jurisdiction of or is it superior to the Supreme Court in its own jurisdiction? Two, does a law–decreed by dictator Marcos no less–have an absolute application and not subject anymore to any interpretation or exception, particularly by a constitutionally-mandated sui generis impeachment court.
In the first case, any weakness by the impeachment court by accepting, to any degree, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can fatally undermine its own jurisdiction and will open the door to more SC intervention. This includes the possibility of the SC stopping the impeachment trial altogether as what is prayed for by a separate petition for certiorari and TRO filed by no less than CJ Corona in his own court.
In the second case, acceptance of the absoluteness of any law, in this case the FCDU act, will also undermine the jurisdiction and even the capability of the impeachment court to fulfill its mandate of determining whether or not an impeachable public official is still fit to hold office. An impeachment process implies the fullest use of state power to get at the truth precisely because the impeachable official is in a position to use the power of his office to derail the search for truth. What this implies, in turn, is that the impeachment court–when it is convened–has only itself to turn to for interpreting its mandate.
In a situation of a divided Supreme Court, with Supreme Court majority decisions being questioned in the impeachment articles, it is dangerous for the impeachment court to allow any interference from this body in its proceedings. In its turn, the Supreme Court TRO exposes the eight justices who signed the order to contempt by the impeachment court at the least. It may, as a possibility, lead to their own impeachment.
It is–as yet–not a constitutional crisis precisely because both sides are still adhering to constitutional processes, albeit with differing interpretations of their respective role and mandate in relation to impeachment. The crisis will arrive when–as a consequence of each one’s decisions–the other side does not recognize the decisions and consequently defy them.
In this situation, the Executive will play the crucial role of choosing whom to recognize and therefore implement the orders, particularly in relation to contempt citations and orders for arrest. Unfortunately, for the Supreme Court majority, they will lose in this battle–it is an open secret that the opposing protagonist in the impeachment trial–despite not directly participating in it–is no less than the President of the Republic.
Will this weaken the Supreme Court as an independent institution? I don’t think so. For what weakened already the credibility of the institution is CJ Corona himself and the majority SC justices appointed by former president Arroyo, whose collective antics have lost the trust of the vast majority of our people in the impartiality, independence, and soundness of the present occupants of the institution.
The charge of the king’s knights only confirmed this. Alas, it is the charge of a light brigade.
Mr. Casiple, Good Day! Nagkasama na po tayo sa mga fora sa UP at Ateneo. I belong to a CSO, The Teachers, Inc. and also connected at the Center for Human Development and Center for Peace and Poverty Studies, PUP, Manila. What you’ve shared to us is very true and I agree 100%. Thank you for enlightening us again on national issues like this. Sana lang ay maliwanagan at iba pa nating kababayan dito! Mabuhay!
The powers exercised by the Senate during an impeachment are powers given to it, “but to be exercised only on occasion,” he pointed out, adding:
“There is only one Senate which occasionally acts as impeachment court; in the same manner, there is only one Supreme Court which occasionally acts as Presidential Electoral Tribunal. The Senate, whether acting as impeachment court or legislative body, is the same Senate that is coequal and not superior to the other department.”
“[O]nly the Constitution is superior … Does the fact that the Constitution [identifies] the Senate as the sole judge of all impeachment cases make it superior to the Supreme Court in everything relating to impeachment? Perhaps we can find an answer to this by [studying] the jurisprudence on the relation of the Supreme Court to other agencies of the government,” he said.
Bernas added that even if the Constitution states that the electoral tribunals shall be the sole judge of all election contests, the high court came in to determine whether there had been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the electoral tribunals. Fr. Bernas (PDI Article/10 Feb)
The constitution made the impeachment court above the impeachable official.The said official should be sequestered from his department if he does not respect it. Can you imagine the Impeachment COURT being attacked by the Philippine Military forces when the court tries to impeach the President? The supreme court should respect the Impeachment court. This is just common sense. It is ridiculous for Corona to try to stop his impeachment by using the supreme court. it was an obvious desperate move and admission of his guilt and we should not fall for his (their) technical maneuver.
Dear Mr Casiple,
I agree that “An impeachment process implies the fullest use of state power to get at the truth precisely because the impeachable official is in a position to use the power of his office to derail the search for truth” It is odd to see the Respondent stopping the investigation on him.
It is also odd to find lawyers from the same school having different views.
Perhaps the problem that caused the confusion of interpretation is, the word “supreme”. People think Supreme Court is above the government. “Co-equal” is wrongly interpreted too, as independent and autonomous.
As I see it, The 3 branches of government, JUDICIAL, EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE are meant to interact and cross check with each other in order to “establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.” They are not independent.
Sa aking pagkakaalam, ang Legislative Branch ang gumagawa ng batas na iminungkahi ng mamamayan. Ang President ang nag aaprove or nagrereject (veto) ng bagong batas at ipinatutupad ito sa Executive branch (mga cabinete at law enforcers). Sa mga lumalabag sa batas o sa mga hindi nagkakaunawan ng kanikanilang karapatan, ang local court ang namamagitan. Ang huling taga pasya kung sino ang tama at ayon sa itinatag na batas ay Supreme Court, under ng Judicial branch.
It seems that the Judicial branch took advantage of this misconception. The following sections and pending house bills show that THE JUDICIAL IS AHEAD IN QUEST FOR DICTATORSHIP and PERA NG BAYAN.
1) From 1987 constitution. Judicial Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.
2) From 1987 Constitution. Judicial Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts, shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.
3) From 1987 constitution, Judicial Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years (70) or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
Inalisan nila ang karapatan ang senado (the law making body of the land) na makialam sa sueldo ng Huwes, at kahit ASIN na ang ulam nating lahat, hindi mababawasan ang kanilang pondo at sueldo ng Huwes . Ang mga huwes ay hindi mawawalan ng trabaho hanggang retirement age na 70. Laging may shortage ang bilang ng judges, kaya malaki ang “savings” na pinaghahhatihatian nila. Patuloy ang justice delayed is denied for the people sa buong bansa..
MGA PAGBOBOTOHAN PA SA PLEBISCITE.
from Senate HB02621
4) AN ACT AMENDING SECTION 2 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9227, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS AN ACT GRANTING ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IN THE FORM OF SPECIAL ALLOWANCES FOR JUSTICES, JUDGES AND ALL OTHER POSITIONS IN THE JUDICIARY WITH THE EQUIVALENT RANK OF JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
GUSTO NG SENADO NA GAWING BATAS na bigyan ng dagdag na Special allowances ang mga Huwes.
From Senate HCR0009
5) CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO AMEND SECTION 8 AND SECTION 9 OF ARTICLE VIII OF THE CONSTITUTION (JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT) TRANSFERRING THE POWER TO APPOINT MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL AND THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND JUDGES OF THE LOWER COURTS FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SUPREME COURT ACTION EN BANC AND REORGANIZING AND BAR COUNCIL
GUSTO NG SENADO NA MAGING BATAS. Aalisan ang karapatan ang President na mag appoint. Mga huwes o sila sila na lang ang pipili ng membro ng Corte Suprema.
Please comment about my interpretation and what do you think we, the people, can do about this.
Thank you,
Rudy Mercado
[…] Senator Sergio Osmeña III earlier said a confrontation over the Chief Justice’s bank accounts was inevitable and on Monday, by all accounts, that confrontation will take place, as the Senate conducts a caucus on what to do about the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court. The TRO prohibits the production of documents concerning the Chief Justice’s dollar deposits. Some background documents can be found in the special section. The Corona Impeachment, and the Chief Justice’s petition to the high court, while the colliding points of view are briskly summarized by Mon Casiple: […]