SC has last say on meaning of the law—Bernas

THE Supreme Court may step in to stop any abuse of discretion during the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, noted constitutional expert Joaquin Bernas said Thursday.

Speaking before the Philippine Constitutional Association meeting at the Manila Hotel, Bernas, dean emeritus of the Ateneo Law School and a member of the constitutional commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, said the Charter gave the high court the power to determine with finality the meaning of the law.

While the House of Representatives had the sole power to initiate impeachment complaints and the Senate was tasked to be the sole judge of such cases, the Supreme Court had intervened in the past to stop grave abuses of discretion, Bernas said.

He said the Court stopped the House from filing a new impeachment complaint against former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. in 2003 because the law prohibited the filing of two such complaints within the same year.

The Court also stopped the House from hearing the impeachment complaint against former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez in 2010, but eventually allowed it to proceed, Bernas said.

He said that even in the cases being handled by election tribunals, the high court had also intervened.

“What all this means is that the Supreme Court can come in when needed to determine the meaning of the law,” Bernas said.

“This does not mean superiority of the [high court] over the the other departments. All it means is that the Constitution has placed in the [Supreme Court] the power to determine with finality the meaning of the law. It means the superiority of the Constitution, and it just so happens that in the constitutional structure of our government, there is separation of responsibilities.

“There is no superiority of one over the others; there is only superiority of the Constitution over all.”

In an open forum afterward, Bernas said failure to disclose to the public a statement of assets, liabilities and net worth—Article 2 in Corona’s ongoing trial—was not an impeachable offense under the law.

“It seems that the law itself does not consider it grave because it allows the declarant to correct mistakes,” Bernas said in response to a question from Camarines Sur Rep. Luis Villafuerte.

He said the non-disclosure of assets in a statement was not among the high crimes included in the Constitution when it came to treason, bribery and other high crimes that would constitute betrayal of public trust.

“It’s not in the same class as treason and bribery covered by culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust,” which implied deliberate intent, Bernas said.

He also said that if the evidence against Corona could not justify his removal or disqualification, but could only justify a lower offense, that meant Corona was not guilty in the impeachment.

The offense that must be proved was treason or other high crimes, Bernas said.

On the other hand, the Senate could still remove a person through impeachment if it believed it was for the good of the nation, Bernas said.

Commenting on the two-thirds vote needed to convict, Bernas said it was up to the Senate to decide if that applied to the 24 seats allowed by the Constitution, in which case 16 votes were needed, or to the 23 seats now filled, in which case only 15 were required.

“In my opinion, if the Senate chooses 15, that’s it. If the Senate chooses 16, so that’s it,” Bernas said. –Rey E. Requejo and Macon R. Araneta, Manila Standard Today