Highly dubious decision

By Artchil B. Fernandez

The Supreme Court once again found itself at the center of a political storm with its decision to void the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.

Voting 13-0, the High Tribunal declared the impeachment of the vice president unconstitutional on two grounds: it violated the one-year ban on impeachment and failed to observe due process.

Legal luminaries, including former Supreme Court justices, questioned the controversial decision of the High Court.

Criticisms of the ruling ranged from claims of unconstitutionality to accusations of judicial overreach and grave abuse of power.

Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban found the decision rushed.

“Instead of issuing a rather rushed decision, I would have favored—if I were still an incumbent—the issuance of a status quo ante order requiring the parties to maintain the current situation, that is, for the Senate to stop any trial while the Court is deliberating on the petition,” he explained.

He also questioned why the Supreme Court did not hold oral arguments for a case with far-reaching political ramifications.

“‘With malice toward none, with charity for all’ (to quote a famous speech of a revered American president), and as part of due process, I would have asked for oral argument before promulgating any decision,” Panganiban wrote.

“If the Court had patiently heard oral arguments on less important problems like the recognition of foreign divorces and the PhilHealth petitions, why not on this monumental case?

At the least, if only to accord respect to a coequal branch of the government, the House of Representatives, I would have called for oral argument before making up my mind and casting my vote.”

Retired Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna considered the decision unfair.

“The 97-page decision… may be legally correct, but it strikes me as rather unfair,” he said.

“It rules the articles of impeachment adopted by the House of Representatives as violating the ‘only one complaint within one year’ rule by crafting a new definition of what constitutes being ‘initiated’ and applying it to a complaint adopted in reliance on its previous and then-prevailing definition.”

“I respectfully appeal that the High Court, by way of a supplemental resolution, apply to this case the doctrine of operative facts, which it has applied before in similar cases—stating that where actions were taken and things done in reliance on its former and then-prevailing definition (or in the absence of one), the actions and things done will be treated as valid, and the new definition will be applied prospectively, i.e., to future cases,” Azcuna said.

Article III, Section 22 of the Constitution explicitly prohibits ex post facto laws—or laws applied retroactively.

Supreme Court decisions form part of the laws of the land.

The recent impeachment decision is therefore applicable only to future impeachments—not to the Sara Duterte case, which was initiated before the new ruling was issued.

The House acted based on the previous Supreme Court decision in Francisco v. House.

The present High Court declaring the House’s action invalid based on a new ruling defies logic and common sense.

How can the House violate a ruling that did not yet exist?

Retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio questioned the new due process requirement imposed by the Court.

“Now, of course, the decision cites another ground—that there was a violation of the right to due process because VP Sara was not given the opportunity to be heard.

She was not given a copy of the articles before it was sent to the Senate,” Carpio said.

“If you apply this rule to the Estrada impeachment and to the Corona impeachment, then those impeachments would be void, because the person being impeached was not given an opportunity to be heard in the House, as it was a direct filing of the resolution by one-third [of the members].”

Carpio argued that the Constitution allows direct filing to skip the process in the House.

“The understanding was that since it’s a direct filing by one-third, you skip all the process in the House,” he explained.

“The Constitution says, ‘the same shall constitute the articles of impeachment.’”

From Justice Carpio’s perspective, the Supreme Court introduced a new requirement not found in the Constitution.

Worse, he said, this addition may even violate the Constitution.

This makes the Court’s decision highly questionable.

The Philippine Constitution Association (Foundation) Inc. (PHILCONSA), through its chairman, retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno, said the Supreme Court gifted itself new powers when it imposed seven new rules on impeachment.

“It runs counter to the advice that in interpreting the Constitution, the role of justices is to serve strictly as umpires.

They should not act as pitchers or batters in favor of any party,” PHILCONSA said in a statement.

“The exercise of this new power which the Court gifted itself will border on the anomalous when a member of the Court becomes a respondent in an impeachment case.”

“Our Constitution is based on democracy, not on the monocracy of any branch of government.

It will endure only if we are able to preserve the pristine principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, accountability of officials, that public office is a public trust, and the sovereignty of the people from whom all powers of government emanate,” PHILCONSA concluded.

Members of the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law, in a statement, said the Supreme Court’s action amounts to “over-judicialization” of the impeachment process.

They criticized the Court for “laying out evidentiary and court-like procedures for Congress, even at the early point of initiation,” thereby permanently changing the nature of impeachment.

The Filipino people must hold the Supreme Court accountable for its dubious, suspicious, and potentially spurious decision.