Skip to main content

When the Absolute Gets Corrupted

THE THEORY OF Constitutional Checks and Balances in government grew from the classical theory of separation of powers in goverment--between the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. This allows a branch of government to provide a check on the other branch when it falls into the decadence of corruption and abuse of power. In theory, the legislative and judicial branches can reign on a rouge executive; the executive and the judiciary on a rouge legislative, and; the executive and legislative branches on a rouge judiciary.

In fact, however, the executive and legislative branches of today have a hard time checking a rouge judiciary. In the general rule of the majority, a judiciary with majority behaving like they are not accountable to their wrongdoings, who can put a check on an institution that supposed to have "absolute" power in the interpretation of the Philippine Constitution?

Of course, the problem is not the Constitution. It is the interpretation that in many instances had been colored with obvious partiality. The midnight appointment of the current Chief Justice Renato Corona smacked of that non-blind justice where delicadeza was thrown out of the window in the sneaky "loophole" that the Constitution was interpreted in favor of an obvious midnight appointment. Will this present Supreme Court do better in rendering justice to the Filipino people even at the expense of its wayward Chief Justice?

If the present set of SC justices failed to do that in the name of self-preservation, they can do that again, and again, and again.

And, these justices will turn every legal table to oppose the Impeachment Court in an effort to protect their ally in Corona. Their weapon is obviously their "absolute" and exclusive power to interprete the Constitution however they want to interprete it, the way they interpreted the Corona midnight appointment.

The only thorn in their side is the Impeachment Court, and its power to remove corrupt justices from an office they do not deserve, and brought shame to. Right now they want to create a precedence in the impeachment trial they hope might pave a way in frustrating this check of their powers as justices, knowing fully well that those corrupt justices will themselves have to face the same impeachment trial later on should they fail now.

The threat of jurisdiction that the Senate as an Impeachment Court is facing right now does not come solely from the impeached Chief Justice. It too comes from those associate justices, those allies of Corona, who themselves will be facing the same impeachment process, once their Boss gets removed from the pinnacle of judicial power.

The failure of justice to uphold the truth by hiding behind a "loophole" of law is a blatant proof that moral ascendancy in those who should administer law and justice have been long lost. What we are dealing now are empty shells where morality and justice no longer resides. Blind justice has regained its sight, and is now looking at its self-interest to protect with vengeance.

When the "absolute" interpreters of the Constitution succumb to partial justice in their interpretation of that Constitution, who will put them to account for their errors? In such a scenario, only the Senate convened as an Impeachment Court can save the nation in the brink of legal collapse. Only the Impeachment Court has been given the power to protect the Constitution from its rouge interpreters.

And the Senate as the Impeachment Court must not cower, and shrink from its constitutional mandate to protect the people. It must not fail in protecting both the Constitution and the people. Otherwise, the people will have to rise again and cut down those who bastardize them in office.

At the end of the day, the Filipino people must always be willing to take justice into their hands when justice can no longer be handed to them by the institutions they put into office to do so. For where is order when the law itself can be bastardized by those who supposed to protect it. Theory or not; law or not, souvereign people, we Filipinos are!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Elite" Cry-Babies?

I CANNOT IMAGINE how an operative of the Special Counter-Insurgency Operations Unit (SCOU), when caught by insurgents and subjective to the worse torture imaginable, can ever survive with their mental faculties intact. But that's exactly what's going to happen if the recent products of SCOU Training cry foul, or more specifically 'hazing,' when they are subjected to the hard realities of law enforcent that handles counterinsurgency operations. Operatives must be physically hard and mentally sturdy to survive the prospect of getting captured without squelling reserved information to the enemy. I am disappointed to hear that the recent batch of SCOUT trainees considered their physical ordeals during training as 'hazing.' Have they entertained the thought that they were in Camp Ceferino Genovia in Barangay Bahay for an exotic 45-day vacation? If they cannot endure physical pain during training, they must ship out because real life counterinsurgency work

Skirting the Issues of Bad Journalism

AMADO DORONILA of the Philippine Daily Inquirer writes today about the perceived coercion that President Benigno Aquino III made on the press in defense of his "passion for flashy cars," and for  his lifestyle as a "pampered son of a wealthy family living an unfrugal life." I encountered some confusion on how Mr. Doronila reasoned out his understanding on how frugal life is meant to be lived. Does he meant to keep the money on the vault unused simply for the sake of not spending them? That will be a suggestion for a miser's lifestyle. Aquino may have "bought," actually exchanged, a third-hand Porsche for his old BMW for approximately the same valuation of P4.5 million. In effect, there was no significant money spent for the acquisition, except perhaps a sales tax if that applied. And here Mr. Doronila concluded that the new President of the Republic is living an "unfrugal life" (did he expect Mr. Aquino to sell the luxury car he had befor

Gifts of Discounts

SECTION 13 of the New Code of Philippine Judicial Conduct (27 April 2004) stated: Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for nor receive any gift, bequest, loan, or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance of judicial duties. Its annotation explains that: Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of money value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office." The key phrase here is--"in the course of their official duties." It means that as long as a judge remains a judge of Philippine courts, this Code applies, prohibiting any receipt, directly or indirectly, from any person. The question then is: Is a discount a gift? On 3