Skip to main content

Showdown

WITH THE CORONA counsels seeking the Supreme Court intervention to stop the Impeachment Trial on Chief Justice Renato Corona, and the Impeachment Court junking the Santiago motion for reconsideration (MR) against the issuance of subpoena on two banks to furnish the court records of Corona accounts, a showdown is offing between the Senate acting as an impeachment court and the Supreme Court known for its rulings "perceived as not impartial."

There are two good things that will come out of this development. First, it will demand a show on how far the balance of power in the Constitutionally-mandated branches of "democratic republican government" work when such balance is assailed by no less than the Chief of the high court himself. With majority of associate justices known to be Corona allies as far as certain controversial rulings are concerned, there is a strong possibility that the majority of SC justices en banc will favor the petition to stop the impeachment court, at least in an effort to let the Chief Justice get away from the hard corner he is in right now. If associate justices ably justified the midnight appointment explicitly prohibited in the Constitution, who can prevent them from contravening the explicit power that the Constitution bestowed upon the Senate as an Impeachment Court?

But the Senate will not sit down on a SC adverse action against it without a fight. And the people will be fully behind it.

Second, the Santiago MR creates an opportunity for the Philippine judicial system to strengthen its laws to support the Constitutional mandate on the balance of power in the government. It provides the test, the stimulant that allows legislators to later on refine the crude provisions in this part of Philippine laws. In fact, I had a feeling that the ever-wise Senator Miriam Santiago intentionally created a scenario that appears to provide an opening to question the power of the Senate as an Impeachment Court for the higher purpose of strengthening it. And the defense unwittingly gets drawn into it, having been put into a situation that it has to act on an opportunity to win the trial in favor of their client.

The coming days will be more exciting as we watch how the Supreme Court will resolve the question on the supreme power of the Senate as an Impeachment Court. How will it vote? Who will join in the voting? Who will inhibit? How each of the associate justices will vote, and justify that vote? How fast they can act on the petition? Meanwhile, the Impeachment Court proceeds to implement its ruling to subpoena the concerned banks to produce the records.

Perilous times. Exciting days to come.

At the end of the day, our democracy will only grow strong when freedom-loving personalities in our country will stand up and fight off the forces that will attempt to subjugate our freedoms with their sneaky attempts at self-serving manipulations.


This article also appears in Kuro-Kuro.

UPDATES

9 February 2012: The Supreme Court issued a TRO that bars impeachment court from opening the Corona dollar account. But it did not tackle the petition to stop the Corona impeachment trial. [Read Report]
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Senate as a Protector of the Unborn

SHOULD SENATE BILL 2497 becomes law, the Upper Chamber would once again distinguish itself as a bastion of rationality and moral discernment in a Congress that has been confused over whose right must be protected the most--that of the mother, or that of the unborn child? The mother bill House Bill 4244, sponsored by Representative Edcel Lagman, believes that mothers must be protected with the protection of the unborn child given only a lip service. While Section 3(i) recognizes that "abortion is illegal and punishable by law," it does, in a twist of linquistic doubletalk, not support the idea that such is a serious break of the law; and instead proposed that "all women needing care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled." It is like giving treatment and counseling to a serial killer after murdering a child, and then simply saying, "You may go now. Just come back to us for a regular check on your wounds." HB4244 is an all-mother bil...
Post a Comment
Read more

Embarrassing Pull Out

THE THING WITH the latest pull out of the Philippine military vessels from the disputed Panatag Shoal gives me a feeling that we have embarassed ourselves for getting duped into withdrawing from standing put in defending that claim. The current statement from the Chinese foreign ministry seems to say that the Philippines has the only responsibility to keep the tension down in the area; not the overreaching China. Somehow China managed to stand pat on its stubbornness in "defending" what is "hers" from the Philippine claim. If the Philippine politicians fail to get the message, then we as well admit our claim as much weaker (of low resolve) compared to that of China. Imagine leaving the Panatag Shoal on the excuse of protecting the government military vessels from bad weather. That's hollow-sounding to me considering that Chinese policy considers such a move a non-issue on their part. So much for our resolve to claim wha...
Post a Comment
Read more

When the High Court Starts to Misinform

THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT to misinform the Filipinos, coming from the Supreme Court lately through its spokesperson Atty. Midas Marquez, its Acting Chief of the Public Information Office. Midas claimed that he had an affidavit signed ( reportedly under pressure ) from the person involved in the distribution of official case documents of Ombudsman Chief Merceditas Gutierrez in her petition to have the High Court stop the impeachment hearing against her at the House of Representatives by the Committee on Justice, docketed as G. R. No. 193450. One claim said that copies of the 65-page petition (248 pages, including the annexes) were distributed and placed on the conference table of teh en banc session conference room on 14 September 2010. In a press statement issued dated 9 March 2011, Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno put the facts clearly and unequivocally: "My office received the Petition on September 14, 2010, at 2:15 p.m. No other copy was received by me or by my staff either ...
Post a Comment
Read more