Judicial Supremacy vs. Judicial Arrogance

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

Duterte vs. House of Representatives exhibited both judicial supremacy and judicial arrogance. The former represents the Supreme Court’s (SC) constitutional duty, whereas the latter is arguably a breach of the separation powers principle. The SC is the court of last resort for justice-seeking citizens, but it cannot appoint itself as the lone and final arbiter of anything and everything.

As per the very old case of Angara vs. Electoral Commission, judicial supremacy is a normative consequence of the separation of powers principle. Our constitution defines the powers of government and allocates demarcated authority to the three branches, namely, the executive (President), legislative (Congress), and the judiciary (SC).

To the SC is assigned the power of judicial review, which specifically means:

“And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them.”

Pertinently, however, while the SC has ultimately the final say on constitutional meanings, it does not have the only say. In fact, the SC exhorted in City of Makati vs City of Taguig:

“This Court, while being the final arbiter of actual cases and controversies, does not possess the exclusive competence to read and interpret the organic law. Indubitably, We share this power and duty with the other branches of government and the people themselves.”

Clearly, all Filipinos bear the responsibility to read and interpret the constitution. Hence, a blind deference to SC decisions can never be the norm. They must be obeyed because they are part of the laws of the land as prescribed by Article 8 of the Civil Code. But this does not mean they cannot be dissected and discussed by the people.

For instance, Dean Mel Sta. Maria’s January 30 Facebook post about Duterte vs. House of Representatives articulates the problem with judicial arrogance very clearly. Specifically, he highlights the very thin line between interpretation and intervention with this query:

“By prescribing exactly how and when evidence must be made available to House members, and by defining what constitutes a “meaningful opportunity” to be heard at the initiation stage, Is this in effect directing the operations of a co-equal body? Is this not a method of implementation that should be left to the House of Representative?”

While emotions are still high after the Duterte decision, it has become palpable that political forces have forgotten their proclivity in using the SC as a weapon to achieve partisan objectives. It has conveniently slipped their minds that they played a huge role in making the SC an active and significant player in the political arena. Nevertheless, judicial arrogance is still a cause for alarm.

Just to reiterate, the 1987 Constitution is our fundamental and paramount law. It prescribes the permanent framework of a system of government by assigning to the different branches their respective powers and duties. Each branch of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere. The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government.

Judicial overreach undermines this balance of power. But we must not be selective with our outrage. Note that the Mandanas decision, which is often touted as landmark jurisprudence, is also an example of judicial legislation. Civil society really needs to do some serious soul-searching to stop the SC from expanding its reach. The hysteria being whipped up by some sectors is not helpful. This moment requires both level-headedness and openness of mind.