Magulo yan, according to retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno, describing the complexity of the topic of his roundtable discussion with the editors and reporters of The Manila Times, the highlights of which are reported in this news story. When friends asked me to help sort out the seeming contradictions in this report, I begged for time to connect the dots (again, sorry for the use of that notorious FOCAP phrase) finding the highlights reported in this story too sketchy to be the basis of an intelligent comment. I needed to read the full transcript of the discussion but, alas, I couldnt find one up to this time. At any rate, I promised Ill hazard an explanation even on the basis of the news reports alone, so heres one for whatever it may be worth in our devalued currency. >Legal vs. practical What seems to be magulo could be the result of mixing what should be considered as purely legal concepts with practical considerations. Its not easy to avoid this confusion, especially when questions like the following arise: Were the impeachment (by the House of Representatives) and the conviction (by the Senate) of former CJ Corona void? Who can declare it void, if indeed is? Can the Supreme Court make such a finding? Can Corona be reinstated to his former position? What happens then to his successor, CJ Sereno? Lets see if we can untangle the web (no pun intended). >Due process Probably, even high school kids can quote the due process clause in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law (Article III, Sec. 1). Quite simply, due process requires (1) fairness and (2) an opportunity to be heard (which includes notice and hearing). When prosecutors and judges are bought, fairness is lost. Theres also no opportunity to be heard because nobodys really listening. So, if there was indeed bribery, as alleged, CJ Corona was deprived of his right to due process. But you might object: he wasnt deprived of life, liberty or property; he was only removed from office. True enough, but even in our administrative disciplinary proceedings where removal from office is the highest penalty that may be imposed (the capital punishment in administrative cases, as it were), due process is still indispensable. Theres a dictum that public office is not private property in the ordinary sense, but in cases involving possible removal from office, such office may be treated as property. >Void judgment A judgment rendered with blatant disregard of a persons right to due process is void - it is as if it does not exist in the eyes of the law (too many citations that you wouldnt care to read anyway). When a judgment is procured by means of bribery, that is a classic case of extraneous fraud which has consistently been the basis for declaring a judgment void. (again, too many citations). >Justiceable issue or political question? So far, we have limited our discussion to the purely legal or jural aspects of the problem. Now we delve into the trickier practicality issue - or more appropriately, the practicability issue: Who can declare the Senates judgment void? Administration apologists have been littering the environment with assertions like impeachment is a political exercise and the Supreme Court cannot entertain political questions. Lets clarify a few things. Before the 1987 Constitution (the Cory Constitution itself), our Supreme Court was disinclined to touch political questions - saying that those matters are better left to the political departments of government, i. e., the Legislative and the Executive. No, children, by political departments, the Supreme Court didnt mean those departments populated by politicos, but those departments entrusted with the crafting and implementation of policy. By contrast, the Judicial Department only interprets the Constitution and the law of the land - it doesnt make or execute policies. And when we say that impeachment is a political exercise, the word political is also rooted in the concept of policy not politics (as in this is a game of numbers). I chose the word disinclined carefully to describe what was then the reluctance of our Supreme Court to make pronouncements on political questions - meaning, on policy matters. Not that it never did so, because in a few cases our Supreme Court inquired into whether or the political departments observed their own rules. But by and large, our Supreme Court would rather leave policy matters to the political departments. >Expanded power of judicial review Now comes the Cory Constitution of 1987. Section 1 of its Article VIII (Judicial Department) contains a new second paragraph which reads: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. In my book, this writes finis to the archaic political question doctrine and it is now within the Constitutional power - and, indeed, duty - to review the acts of the political departments. And it seems Inday Miriam and I agree. Heres a quote from her blog of October 10: “Constitutional scholars are united in the view that under the present Constitution, the Supreme Court is no longer inhibited from deciding political questions. The Constitution now provides that judicial power includes the duty of the court to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government, even in cases involving political questions,” she said, quoting Art. 8, Sec. 1, paragraph 2. [miriam.ph/newsblog/ ] >Who will enforce a judgment declaring Coronas conviction void? This is the point where CJ Punos remark Magulo yan hits the mark. While the three great branches of government are co-equal in theory, in truth the Judicial Department is the weakest. It does not hold the purse nor does it wield the sword. What it has is the power and the duty to say what the law is. But who will enforce its decision when Malacañang and Congress find it unacceptable? Can Corona be reinstated, and who will reinstate him? Can Sereno be removed, and who will remove her? Here is where I reach the limit of my competence, and simply agree with CJ Puno na magulo yan. Good night, children, at antok na antok na si Lolo.
Posted on: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:23:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015