Uncivil disobedience

By Michael Henry Yusingco, LL.M

The dean of the University of Asia and the Pacific law school, who is also the country’s leading conservative intellectual, posted recently that “the Supreme Court is merely one of three equal branches of government” and the fact that all its members are lawyers does not make it the “smartest branch”. Dean Jemy Gatdula correctly points out that “like any human institution it can commit error”. Recognizing this fallibility is not an attack on the Supreme Court (SC) but a necessary act of civic responsibility.

Unfortunately, descriptors like “last bulwark of democracy” and “guardian of the Constitution” fuel the myth of infallibility. While the SC’s decisions are final in practice, this does not mean the public needs to treat every ruling as inherently correct. In fact, these decisions should be dissected and discussed in classrooms, podcasts, and public affairs programs. This means, of course, that everyone must read SC decisions. At least, those who intend to make public comments about them.

The hot topic of the day is the recent decision declaring the impeachment complaint against the Vice President as unconstitutional. Sadly, many people who expressed harsh views about this ruling did not read the decision itself. In general, the SC here outlined sufficient legal support for its determination of unconstitutionality. Some aspects of it can elicit strong debate like the new way to trigger the 1-year ban because it seems to favor public officials. Moreover, some parts read like a sly commentary on the misbehavior of political actors involved in the impeachment move.

It cannot be emphasized enough that SC decisions form part of the laws of the land as prescribed by Article 8 of the Civil Code. This further underscores the need to thoroughly analyze these decisions. If we are to follow its commands properly, then we must understand its rationale. One positive realization in this instance is the accessibility of SC decisions. Not that reading jurisprudence is easier now but having that direct and convenient link to this resource should encourage more Filipinos to study SC decisions.

Alarmingly, some folks are now advocating for defying the SC impeachment decision. Obviously, to disobey a SC decision is to disobey the law. Proceeding with the impeachment trial is disregarding the SC decision that declared the impeachment complaint unconstitutional. Needless to say, no one, most of all lawmakers, should be promoting disobedience to the law. If the rule of law is to prevail, then the Senate and the House of Representatives should abide by the SC decision and drop the impeachment trial.

For the House prosectors though, they should now bring the case to the Ombudsman and work to secure a plunder indictment. After all, they have declared that they will not cease pursuing accountability as this is their constitutional duty. Lucky for them the Ombudsman has already opened an investigation into the plunder accusations made against the Vice-president. A concerted effort might get the result the public demands. Crucially, a plunder indictment can mean jail time for the accused. This would be another opportunity to educate political leaders and public officials that crime does not pay.

Our constitutional rights empower us to criticize government, even the SC. Accordingly, we can publicly and collectively express grievances against SC decisions, even when these gripes are palpably inane and baseless. But pressuring the SC to act beyond the confines of the constitution is counterproductive. History has shown us that when the SC strays from its constitutional duty, freedom and democracy are severely compromised. Remember the case of Javellana vs. Executive Secretary that effectively paved the way for the Marcos Sr. dictatorship.

Indeed, at this very moment, it is more optimal to use people power to pressure the President to appoint the right person to be the new Ombudsman. We should demand that he chooses someone who has absolutely no personal and professional connection to him and his family. The reality is we desperately need an Ombudsman who can do a better job at prosecuting corrupt public officials. We want to see more high-level officials, especially plunderers, behind bars.