Impeachment being a political issue, leaving the matter to the Senate effectively leaves the latter in the hands of the people, because they could at a later election reward or punish the senators for their votes.
I’VE heard so many different points of view – two men at a nearby table in a restaurant, three office workers in a lift, three office mates, and, of course, countless others on social media
The Supreme Court is guilty of overreach in its decision on the impeachment complaint, says one side. The Court is upholding the Constitution and our most inalienable rights, say the other.
The Senate should comply. The Senate should defy.
What’s clear is that there is a crisis, at least in terms of understanding what is being debated about. What’s not clear is if there will indeed be a Constitutional crisis.
And it’s all made more complex because we Filipinos are an “utang na loob” lot and we figure that Supreme Court justices are a lot immune to this Filipino value. How this explains the vote of the lone PNoy appointee and the lone BBM appointee escapes me, though, because they actually voted with the majority.
I never wanted my UP Law degree; I was an incomplete grade short of doing so. But I have been thinking about this latest issue since it first broke over the weekend and I think – had I been on the Court – I would have been the type to try to rule in a way that upholds the Constitution in every respect as relevant to this case in respecting the Court as the ultimate interpreter of the provisions of the Constitution, as well as in respecting the other Constitutional institutions – the House and the Senate in particular – to maintain their integrity and yes sanctity.
Yes, it was within the power of the Court to have ruled on the matter of whether the rights of the Vice President were violated. Except that in this case, its power to rule is in a way constrained. Because the issue arises from the exercise of the powers of the House and the Senate, powers that the Constitution made exclusive to them. In particular, how the House disposes of impeachment complaints is a matter left within its powers to decide. Whether or not, on its exercise of those powers, there was a violation which was serious enough to affect the fairness of the process is a matter to be raised by the defense.
Similarly, when the Senate convened as an impeachment court, it was in the exercise of its exclusive powers to hear an impeachment complaint and pass judgment. When they convened, no other branch of government should have intervened. Whatever issue regarding violation of due process could be raised should then be raised during the trial; and whoever the Senate rules on the matter would have been final and executory A because that is how the Constitution was written.
Impeachment being a political issue, leaving the matter to the Senate effectively leaves the latter in the hands of the people, because they could at a later election reward or punish the Senators for their votes.
So had I been the one to rule on behalf of the Supreme Court, I would have deferred to the Senate because, on this matter, the Constitution vests exclusive powers in it to decide and dispose of the case. I as the Supreme Court may have commented about the matter of a one-year ban (or maybe not!) but I would have said that out of respect for the Constitution and for the independent institutions the Constitution has created – in this case the House and the Senate – then it would be best to allow the political process to proceed and, ultimately, for the people themselves to judge.
On political matters, I’ll always go with People Power (through the ballot) over Justice Power.
