Government of laws

The Corona impeachment case seems to be shaping up as a publicity contest between the Lower House of Representatives represented by 188 Congressmen/women who signed the Complaint and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who is the accused in said complaint. The course of the action has turned into how to win the hearts and minds of the populace through press releases showing the strength or weakness of their case, rather than on how to win the case through presentation of convincing proofs of facts and the applicable law.

This case is indeed one of the few, if not the only case where both parties see the need of hiring a PR man to serve as their mouthpiece in presenting to the public their own versions of the blow by blow account of the trial inside the halls of the Upper House. Apparently this need arises mainly because the entire nation will be intently watching the proceedings which may be quite difficult for the common man to understand.

The foreseeable problem and danger here is that the contending spokespersons will necessarily depict their side as “leading or winning in the game” when they explain the developments of the case. There is also the very proximate possibility that the case will be decided in the streets rather than inside the chambers of the Senate. Here Corona will be at a great disadvantage mainly because of his low trust rating and the adverse publicity he has been getting as a result of the continued criticisms and attacks against him and the judiciary by the highly popular P-Noy.

Besides, it is highly likely that the intricate and too technical rules in the presentation and appreciation of evidence which are hard to fathom, will not be strictly observed or will even be completely disregarded if they are unpopular and against the swelling public opinion shaping up in the case. If this happens, the whole truth that is supposedly determinable through established rules will never come out.

Of course, it has been repeatedly argued that impeachment is more of a political process rather than a judicial one. So in a democratic and republican state like ours where sovereignty ultimately resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them, their “voice” must reign supreme: “salus populi est suprema lex”.

The problem with this argument is that when our Constitution says that “sovereignty resides in the people” (Article II Section 1), it does not mean that the most numerous and boisterous among them, whose voices sound the loudest, should be heeded. Neither does the “voice” here refers to the results of popularity surveys. While sovereignty indeed resides in the people, that sovereignty is exercised not directly through the mass action of an indeterminate number of faceless people but through their representatives and leaders in the Legislative and the Executive Departments of government and in the local government units chosen in an election officially conducted. They are chosen on the basis of their competence, qualification and ability to represent the people, articulate their voice and promote their interest in accordance with the fundamental law of the land and the statutes enacted pursuant thereto. They are precisely chosen because they are more knowledgeable in the workings of a government of laws and not of men. Sovereignty is therefore asserted either through the ballot in the exercise of the right of suffrage (Article V) or directly through peoples’ initiative in proposing amendments to the Constitution or enacting or amending statutes (Article XVII).

In the unfolding events we are now witnessing, it is becoming clearer that certain basic principles embedded in our Constitution are forgotten or ignored all in the name of an avowed objective to clean and reform the government specifically the judiciary which has been pictured and assailed as putting up the biggest stumbling blocks to attaining those “noble” aims. There seems to be a dangerous tendency to arouse the ire of the people and stir them into action against certain officials in the government particularly in the SC who are perceived as the enemy of this administration and therefore also enemy of the people who catapulted it to power.

The times indeed require some counter moves that will uphold and preserve the principles in our Constitution providing for a government of laws and not of men. And the only institution that can adopt those moves are the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court (SC) pursuant to its power of judicial review or the power to interpret the Constitution and to declare any legislative or executive act invalid because it is in conflict with it. (Article VIII Sections 4 [2,3] and 5 [2 a.b.]). Through this power, the judiciary, particularly the SC, is not asserting its supremacy over the other departments of government but merely enforcing and upholding the supremacy of the Constitution.

Ironically, the credibility of the judiciary particularly the SC is now at its lowest because of attacks and criticisms; and its independence is threatened by moves of the executive and the legislative branches particularly the impeachment of its Chief Justice whose appointment is still being questioned up to now. If the judiciary is no longer credible, independent and free then there is no more assurance of having a government of laws.

Fortunately, the SC still has the opportunity to assert its independence and uphold the supremacy of the Constitution through its actions on the four petitions filed before it asking for the dismissal of the impeachment rap against its Chief Justice on the ground of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Lower House of Congress. To be up to the task it should take cognizance of the petitions and determine whether a grave abuse of discretion has indeed been committed. If it believes the Constitution has been violated, then it should dismiss the impeachment complaint even if it is an unpopular and seemingly awkward decision.

The administration and the supposed majority should respect such ruling. If they do not agree with it, they should blame the lawmakers and the framers of the Constitution and take steps to amend it by removing that power of judicial review from the SC or limiting it. This is how a government of laws works. –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)

*      *      *

E-mail: jcson@pldtdsl.net