By Diego Morra
After Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen got well-deserved trashing after writing the 97-page decision declaring as “unconstitutional” the articles of impeachment filed against Vice President Sara Zimmerman Duterte Carpio, it is but natural for some of his schoolmates to come to his succor, asking the public to have some empathy for a jurist who palpably wrote his ponencia with “cold neutrality” and fidelity to the law.
Some of them said the decision was informed as well by Leonen’s experience, having been subjected to impeachment himself until the better angels of the bench’s nature found no reason to disturb the august body. The defense of Leonen is not even a defense. Having been the subject of an impeachment himself does not imbue Leonen with the superior experience needed to dispense impartial justice in a case to which he could have been emotionally attached. Of course, we are not saying that there was a quid pro quo for the decision since it would mean the entire court was privy to a deal that any court worth its robe must not countenance. Was he promised an appointment as Chief Justice by Chief Runny Nose Chiz Escudero? Nope. It’s not his to give.
However, the court itself could have contemplated the possibility that Leonen’s ponencia would be assailed by those who argued that his earlier impeachment case would color his judgment. Assign the task to others, perhaps the Chief Justice, and hold oral arguments to grant due process to the House of Representatives as well, along with other parties raring to dispute the creaky legal leg upon which the Sara Duterte petition was anchored. Leonen’s ponencia was certainly unique as it laid the processes that the Lower House should abide by to comply with the requirements of due process and the law.
Worse, these processes compelled the body that impeached Sara Duterte to provide her with all the allegations and the evidence that she had failed to disprove or refused to contest during the congressional inquiry. Parang sinabi ng hukuman na teka, tingnan muna natin ang ebidensya kung uubra na taste ng respondent. These things hardly give sense to the argument that we should have empathy for Leonen and the justices who concurred with the decision. It reminds many of the big hit of the Rolling Stones in 1968: “Sympathy for the Devil.” These are the excerpts from lyrics written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richard: Please allow me to introduce myself//I’m a man of wealth and taste//I’ve been around for a long, long year//Stole many a man’s soul and faith//I was ’round when Jesus Christ//Had his moment of doubt and pain//Made damn sure that Pilate//Washed his hands and sealed his fate//Pleased to meet you//Hope you guess my name//But what’s puzzlin’ you//Is the nature of my game.
As Sara Duterte clearly disrespected the Senate and insulted the Lower House in the course of the inquiries of the two chambers, how would Leonen justify bending over backwards and running roughshod over the regulations of the chambers by telling them that you have to follow our sage advice now richly detailed in the 97-page decision. Rulings are supposed to be prospective. Why should the Leonen ponencia be “immediately executory”? Court rulings are appealable since they are not decisions rendered by military tribunals trying war criminals but the Leonen ponencia insists it must be implemented forthwith. Seems like an edict from an English king commanding the waves to stop hitting his royal feet. For millions who watched the congressional inquiry, the ponencia doesn’t wash.
Moreover, the criticisms written by former Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justices Reynato Puno and Artemio Panganiban, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna are all serious questions about the very anchors of the Leonen ponencia. If the records prove that there was a vote in the plenary contrary to what the decision said, then the entire issue of “unconstitutionality” of the filing collapses. If Sara Duterte were given all the opportunities to rebut the allegations but did not, then the issue of “due process” is shattered. What is sauce for the goose is the sauce for the gander. Due process for one must be due process for all. Scuttling the impeachment trial, as what the assailed ponencia amounts to, is a tragedy that rewards the respondent with an undeserved advantage and subverts the public’s demand for accountability.
The Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa) also rebuked the High Court for laying the rules covering the crafting, filing and trial of respondents in impeachment cases, The new rules violate Article XI (3) of the Constitution, which gives the House the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. The initiation of impeachment is undertaken by lawmakers who are responsible to the people who elected them. Should they make a mistake during the process, the people can choose not to vote for them as punishment. Philconsa argued that for the past 100 years, the courts have not fiddled with impeachment and respected the political issue principle, which prohibits the judiciary from interfering with the conduct by the House of the initiation process of impeachment.
“It is embedded in constitutions of all countries, which consecrate the democratic principle that power emanates from the people. The court cannot minimalize this principle that prevents the judiciary from exercising power that can overwhelm the other branches of government,” Philconsa stressed. In Article XI (8) of the Constitution, it provides that Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment. “It is daylight clear that the SC cannot write the rules for Congress. In the same vein, Congress cannot write the rules for the SC to follow in deciding a case,” Philconsa concluded.
