On the impeachment of the Chief Justice
When an impeachment complaint was filed in the House of Representatives against Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, I thought that a constitutional process was simply set in motion by someone who might have found a cause of action. After all, it was not the first time that such an action was leveled against a high constitutional officer as in fact the last impeachment resulted in the ouster of the country's highest magistrate. On that note, I believed that the process would only tend to strengthen our democratic system and affirm our belief in the legal structures.
There were, of course, some perceptions that President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, because of his earlier combative statements against the Chief Justice, gave the go-ahead signal to the lawyer who initiated the complaint. If true, that provided the proverbial wind beneath the wings of the lawyer-complainant. That perception reminded me of the allegations that former President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, was behind the impeachment of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona. A push coming from the president carries with it weighty ramifications that cannot be taken for granted. This was seen in the supposed Aquino-Corona tiff. Why would anyone think that a flawed Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth could lead to the fall of a Chief Justice?
The other day, the Office of the President issued a call for Chief Justice Sereno to resign. It was made in such a way that the public to me, it added substance to the otherwise blurred claim that our president was (and probably still is) really behind the complainant. Some quarters allied with Malacañang,in an attempt to down play the significance of the seeming presidential imprimatur to the impeachment, tried to offer the view that the resignation could save our country from plunging into a crisis of some kind. They opine that if the jurist resists the complaint, our people might be polarized into two camps and when two separate departments of the government marshal their strengths to do battle, we face a constitutional crisis. This is a simplistic explanation emanating from biased thinking. It is drawn by subjective minds and as such this proposition is necessarily diluted. Fortunately for many, including me, political theory contradicts it.
The constitution provides for public accountability system. Impeachment is at its apex. Thru this process, certain high officials like the president and the Chief Justice, may be removed from office. When an impeachment complain is lodged, the two legislative chambers assume different roles with the House of Representatives acting like the prosecutor's office and the Senate as court.The respondent, in the situation obtaining, the Chief Justice, is given a proverbial day in court. What an ample day? More importantly, the executive department is, theoretically speaking, without a role to play. Unless he fuels the action, he is supposed to be just a by stander. That being so, with the major branches of government acting within constitutional parameters, people may notoriously be noisy for or against a player but, my naïveté considered, what crises can arise?
What if it, indeed, is true, as it now seems to appear to me, that the president has fueled this impeachment case against the Chief Justice? The terrain is open to speculation. For instance, we could expect to hear a repetition of such reprehensible report as the alleged multi million peso transmittals from President Aquino to the senator-judges hearing then Chief Justice Corona. With his leadership name at stake, the president would use all resources available to him to sway the senator-judges to whatever cause he has. That could lead to a crisis if the upper house should refuse to be so persuaded.
I hope that the scene I am trying to paint is unfounded. It will be helpful if Pres.Duterte just allows the impeachment proceedings to go with total non-interference - suggestive or unequivocal - on his part.
- Latest
