Friends of the court but not the defendant?

The impeachment court invited two retired chief justices and a retired associate justice as amici curiae or “friends of the court” to help determine or share their views on the voting threshold of the ongoing impeachment trial.

I honestly found this disturbing on certain points, starting with the controversial statement of one senator who previously suggested that the law should be bent if public interest required.

The public was amazed by such an idea that the senator was nicknamed the “Law-Bender,” a take-off from the movie “Avatar – The Last Air Bender.”

Now, we have the impeachment court inviting retired justices to explain, possibly influence or even justify the impeachment court’s efforts to overrule the black and white printed instruction of the Philippine Constitution on how many votes are required to impeach the vice president.

If the members of the honorable court or senator-judges cannot agree amongst themselves or decide on the matter, what does inviting retired members of the Supreme Court accomplish except to suggest or prove their lack of competence in law or jurisprudence as well as running an impeachment trial?

The invitation is a clear manifestation of “confirmation bias” that Google defines “as the tendency to search for, interpret, favor and recall information that supports one’s preexisting beliefs or values while ignoring or dismissing contrary evidence.”

I’m honestly surprised the retired honorable justices would lend themselves to be used or made part of a political process and blatant attempt to short cut the impeachment process and disrespect if not violate the Constitution.

I wonder why in the first place would the retired justices risk their reputations by being dragged or stained by participating in a political controversy that has become divisive and disruptive.

I respect the knowledge, experience and expertise of the three justices, but all that does not preclude the possibility that one, two, if not three of them may have or had expressed bias in the matter, or against the defendant, in the past or present circumstance.

In the US, before a trial of your peers takes place, there is jury selection to determine that those who will determine the outcome of a trial have no bias, interest or knowledge of the case or the accused. A potential juror can be excused simply for their political or religious beliefs, etc.

In the Philippines, anyone presented as witness is also checked by the prosecution or the defense to determine if the person is qualified to testify based on personal knowledge, integrity, etc.

So how well does Congress screen those they invite as amici curiae? Regardless of name, reputation or experience, the matter of personal bias is hard to set aside, especially if their opinion or remarks are made in an impeachment trial which is of national concern.

Were the retired justices screened or interviewed regarding any political or personal bias they may have for or against Vice President Sara Duterte? Going a little further, have they at any point expressed bias or judgment against ex-president Rodrigo Duterte?

Did the senator-judges inquire if the invited “friends of the court” have any affiliation, investment or consultancies in any government office, agency or government-owned and -controlled corporation that might indirectly pressure one to be inclined towards one side?

How did the impeachment court even arrive at the guest list of amici curiae? Did the justices express availability or desire to take part in such a historical proceeding or were they selected by the prosecution side? Those two things would already cast doubt on interest or confirmation bias.

I raise the possibility of bias on the part of the three justices because of their power to influence not just the impeachment court but the integrity and outcome of the impeachment and future legislation.

In the first place, why is the impeachment court asking the opinion of retired justices on a constitutional matter? The question of threshold and constitutionality should, if needed, be submitted before the Supreme Court en banc.

The matter should be considered and decided upon by ACTIVE justices of the Supreme Court. Without wanting to, I cannot help but suspect that inviting “friends of the court” or amici curiae is a strategy to once again “bend the law” by getting a “non-binding” legal opinion from retired justices.

Legislation and jurisprudence and our Constitution is not a master class in yoga or Pilates where one’s objective is to stretch or bend the interpretation of the law and bend its spirit and intentions to suit the motive and goal of a political group.

It is bad enough that the Marcos Jr. administration is often accused of “weaponizing” government agencies against its critics. It has even been said that Congress, both House of Representatives and the Senate, are in collusion with the PBBM administration.

What should never happen is for the Supreme Court to allow itself to be undermined or defrauded of its authority, integrity and independence, not when the Constitution itself stands to be dismissed or disregarded by “law benders.”

The strategy of inviting amici curiae is not a simple matter of getting advice or guidance regarding threshold and numbers. It is designed to manipulate the wisdom and opinion of retired justices to justify shortcutting lawful processes.

When legislator-judges do this, when retired justices allow this, they become anarchists.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]