Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila ... - Columba.us
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
This Court did not heed <strong>the</strong> call to adopt a hands-<strong>of</strong>f stance as far as <strong>the</strong> question <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
constitutionality <strong>of</strong> initiating <strong>the</strong> impeachment complaint against Chief J<strong>us</strong>tice Davide is<br />
concerned. To reiterate what has been already explained, <strong>the</strong> Court found <strong>the</strong> existence in full <strong>of</strong><br />
all <strong>the</strong> requisite conditions for its exercise <strong>of</strong> its constitutionally vested power and duty <strong>of</strong><br />
judicial review over an issue whose resolution precisely called for <strong>the</strong> construction or<br />
interpretation <strong>of</strong> a provision <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fundamental law <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> land. What lies in here is an issue <strong>of</strong> a<br />
genuine constitutional material which only this Court can properly and competently address and<br />
adjudicate in accordance with <strong>the</strong> clear-cut allocation <strong>of</strong> powers under our system <strong>of</strong><br />
government. Face-to-face th<strong>us</strong> with a matter or problem that squarely falls under <strong>the</strong> Court's<br />
jurisdiction, no o<strong>the</strong>r course <strong>of</strong> action can be had but for it to pass upon that problem head on.<br />
The claim, <strong>the</strong>refore, that this Court by judicially entangling itself with <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong><br />
impeachment has effectively set up a regime <strong>of</strong> judicial supremacy, is patently without basis in<br />
fact and in law.<br />
This Court in <strong>the</strong> present petitions subjected to judicial scrutiny and resolved on <strong>the</strong> merits only<br />
<strong>the</strong> main issue <strong>of</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> impeachment proceedings initiated against <strong>the</strong> Chief J<strong>us</strong>tice<br />
transgressed <strong>the</strong> constitutionally imposed one-year time bar rule. Beyond this, it did not go about<br />
assuming jurisdiction where it had none, nor indiscriminately turn j<strong>us</strong>ticiable issues out <strong>of</strong><br />
decidedly political questions. Beca<strong>us</strong>e it is not at all <strong>the</strong> b<strong>us</strong>iness <strong>of</strong> this Court to assert judicial<br />
dominance over <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two great branches <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> government. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> raison d'etre <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
judiciary is to complement <strong>the</strong> discharge by <strong>the</strong> executive and legislative <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own powers to<br />
bring about ultimately <strong>the</strong> beneficent effects <strong>of</strong> having founded and ordered our society upon <strong>the</strong><br />
rule <strong>of</strong> law.<br />
It is suggested that by our taking cognizance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> constitutionality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> impeachment<br />
proceedings against <strong>the</strong> Chief J<strong>us</strong>tice, <strong>the</strong> members <strong>of</strong> this Court have actually closed ranks to<br />
protect a brethren. That <strong>the</strong> members' interests in ruling on said issue is as much at stake as is<br />
that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chief J<strong>us</strong>tice. Nothing could be far<strong>the</strong>r from <strong>the</strong> truth.<br />
The institution that is <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court toge<strong>the</strong>r with all o<strong>the</strong>r courts has long held and been<br />
entr<strong>us</strong>ted with <strong>the</strong> judicial power to resolve conflicting legal rights regardless <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> personalities<br />
involved in <strong>the</strong> suits or actions. This Court has dispensed j<strong>us</strong>tice over <strong>the</strong> course <strong>of</strong> time,<br />
unaffected by whomsoever stood to benefit or suffer <strong>the</strong>refrom, unfraid by whatever imputations<br />
or speculations could be made to it, so long as it rendered judgment according to <strong>the</strong> law and <strong>the</strong><br />
facts. Why can it not now be tr<strong>us</strong>ted to wield judicial power in <strong>the</strong>se petitions j<strong>us</strong>t beca<strong>us</strong>e it is<br />
<strong>the</strong> highest ranking magistrate who is involved when it is an incontrovertible fact that <strong>the</strong><br />
fundamental issue is not him but <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> a government branch's <strong>of</strong>ficial act as tested by<br />
<strong>the</strong> limits set by <strong>the</strong> Constitution? Of course, <strong>the</strong>re are rules on <strong>the</strong> inhibition <strong>of</strong> any member <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> judiciary from taking part in a case in specified instances. But to disqualify this entire<br />
institution now from <strong>the</strong> suit at bar is to regard <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court as likely incapable <strong>of</strong><br />
impartiality when one <strong>of</strong> its members is a party to a case, which is simply a non sequitur.<br />
No one is above <strong>the</strong> law or <strong>the</strong> Constitution. This is a basic precept in any legal system which<br />
recognizes equality <strong>of</strong> all men before <strong>the</strong> law as essential to <strong>the</strong> law's moral authority and that <strong>of</strong><br />
its agents to secure respect for and obedience to its commands. Perhaps, <strong>the</strong>re is no o<strong>the</strong>r