IBP raises concerns, voices support to SC, CJ

The 40,000-strong Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is calling on every member of the justice system to rally behind and defend the Supreme Court as an institution of democracy and rule of law even as it expressed grave alarm over railroaded proceedings of the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

At a press briefing, the IBP led by national president Roan Libarios said “the breakneck impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona…treads on the powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of law and arbiter of judicial disputes as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.

“As sentinel of freedom and democracy, the IBP considers the breakneck and high-handed impeachment delivered by the House as a menace and an open subversion of the constitutional prerogatives of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the law and the arbiter of rights,” the IBP said in a statement signed by its national leaders headed by president and chairman Roan Libarios.

Other IBP officials who signed the statement include governors Denis Habawel (Northern Luzon), Olivia Jacoba (Central Luzon), Dominic Solis (Greater Manila), Vicente Joyas (Southern Luzon), Leonor

Gerona-Romeo (Bicolandia), Manuel Enage Jr. (Eastern Visayas), Erwin Fortunato (Western Visayas), Israelito Torreon (Eastern Mindanao) and Florendo Opay (Western Mindanao).

The lawyers’ group stressed that the House arrogated unto itself the power to interpret the law over and above the high court by impeaching the Chief Justice based on decisions issued by the high tribunal.

“Such an impeachment has transformed the House of Representatives as the higher interpreter of what law is, a clear encroachment on the prerogatives exclusively vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court itself,” the IBP stressed, adding that this would lead to the crumbling of constitutional doctrines of separation of powers and judicial supremacy on matters of interpretation of laws.

While it expressed support behind the reform agenda of President Aquino, the IBP said its implementation must respect –- and not subvert — the constitutional allocation of powers to the three branches of government.

“If the Supreme Court is emasculated by partisan actions, to whom shall the people turn against excesses by those who are in power?” the IBP asked.

The IBP said grounds invoked to impeach Corona refer to the collegial decisions of the Supreme Court involving interpretation of law in actual disputes elevated for review.

Among these are the invalidation of Executive Order No. 1 creating the Truth Commission, the upholding by the Supreme Court of laws enacted by Congress involving the creation of Dinagat Province and conversion of 16 municipalities into cities and the creation of a new congressional district in Camarines Sur, the issuance of a status quo ante order in the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the watchlist order preventing former President Arroyo to travel abroad.

“In all of the cited cases, the record shows that the Chief Justice was not the ponente but merely concurred in the majority or minority opinion. Neither did the Chief Justice flip-flop or change his position in any of these cases,” the group said.

“The decisions were reached by the Supreme Court pursuant to its processes and subjected to reconsideration proceedings. They all involve interpretation of what the law is,” it added.

In a petition submitted earlier, veteran lawyer Vicente Millora prayed for the SC to declare null and void the Articles of Impeachment which did not go through the process under Section 3, Article Xl of the Charter.

Millora also petitioned the high court for the issuance of a TRO against the Senate trial, pointing out that “the doctrine of political question, as a defense in prohibition against justiciability has significantly and appreciably been delimited in its application and may not, therefore, be readily available as it was under the former Constitution and procedural governance, in view of the provision of the 1987 Constitution, Section 1, Article Vlll.”

He said the impeachment complaint was “manuevered in open conspiracy with President Aquino, to put into disrespect and ridicule not only the Chief Justice… but also the Supreme Court(SC).”

The House of Representatives, Millora said ,”acted with grave and blatant abuse of discretion.”

But two senators aligned with President Aquino also yesterday warned the high tribunal against getting into the picture on the impending Senate trial of the CJ, saying that the SC does not have any power to stop the forthcoming proceedings in the upper chamber.

Senators Panfilo Lacson and Antonio Trillanes IV, both of whom are not lawyers, took this position in light of the Millora petition seeking to declare the impending trial as sham proceedings.

Trillanes is of the opinion that the high court is in no position to even hear the petition, apparently aimed at thwarting the impeachment trial against one of their colleagues as the mandate solely belongs to Congress.

“The SC has no authority to stop the impeachment. It is the sole domain of the Legislature,” he said in a text message to reporters.He expressed apprehension that the high court might intervene anew in the impeachment proceedings, in the case of Corona as it did in the past.

He cited the earlier decision of the impeachment proceedings against former SC Chief Justice Hilario Davide, where the high tribunal issued a status quo ante order, as petitioned by the House, with the Senate president then refusing to accept the Articles of Impeachment despite the fact that the proceedings were correctly executed by the House justice committee, and with the required number of congressmen voting to impeach Davide.

“They have done that before during the impeachment of Davide. But we won’t allow their intervention this time,” Trillanes said.

Lacson said the SC will be watched on how it will handle the said petition adding that the Constitution guarantees the impeachment process.

“It bears watching how the court will handle that petition. The Constitution is clear as it is plain on the matter of impeachment against certain officials. There is no other interpretation,” he said.

Senate’s designated spokesman for the impeachment court, lawyer Maria Valentina Cruz said that they had already received the petition of Millora but still waiting for instructions from the senators.

As this developed, the Senate announced that it has already designated the Claro M. Recto function room as the designated receiving desk for the reply of Corona in the writ of summons issued by the impeachment court last Dec. 15.

Corona has been given until Dec. 26 to submit his answer to the Articles of Impeachment filed by the members of the lower house. –Benjamin B. Pulta, Daily Tribune