Honeyman: Yes to impeachment

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

IN MAY 1787, the American Founding Fathers held a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Their aim was to develop a system of government, which ensured that no one part would be able to dominate the other parts. The framers of the Constitution divided the government into three separate branches and gave each branch certain checks over the other two. The branches were the Judicial, the Legislative, and the Executive.

Almost 200 years later the current Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines was created. Although very different in detail, reflective of Philippines’ unique culture, the 1987 Constitution has preserved the separation of powers embodied by the Judicial, Legislative, and Executive Branches. No one branch should be perceived to be stronger or weaker than the others.

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

Last week, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) published an open letter signed by its National President, Roan I. Libarios and the IBP’s regional governors. The letter was entitled ‘No to Impeachment Defend the Institution.’ We wonder the extent to which the views expressed by IBP’s officers are shared by its rank and file members.

The final paragraph of the open letter states:

‘Thus, the IBP, cognizant of its institutional mandates, calls upon the stakeholders and the pillars of the justice system to rally behind and defend the Supreme Court (SC) as an institution of democracy and the Rule of Law’

Absolutely!

Which is why we support the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

The Philippines still resides in the bottom third of the corruption league table. We want to do better. We can do better. But we cannot do better unless we make conscious changes to dysfunctional systems and institutions. These include the Supreme Court (SC).

We do not believe that the SC is a shining, corrupt-free beacon in an otherwise venal society. We believe that the SC is part of the problem. We want it to become part of the solution.

We want the SC to be strong and well-respected. This cannot be, so long as Renato Corona is Chief Justice. His flawed, midnight appointment from an unpopular president who herself was elected under dubious circumstances has weakened the SC. This weakness has been compounded by a series of pronouncements, now subject to the impeachment complaint.

I believe there are many IBP members who consider that the impeachment complaint should be heard.

There is much in the IBP’s letter that is contentious. It states ‘of the three branches of government, the judiciary is the weakest.’ This should not be true. The phrase, ‘the three co-equal branches of government’ is not meant to be empty. ‘Checks and balances’ should have operational significance.

It is in the nature of many to go up to, and perhaps beyond, their range of authority. Our structure of government is meant to ensure that ultra vires decisions are negated.

In any case, a fundamental characteristic of democracy is that de facto decision-making power is diffused across many sectors. We are glad that this is so.

*****

The IBP criticizes the ‘breakneck’ impeachment of the Chief Justice. We agree. Although the House Justice Committee, chaired by Rep Niel Tupas Jr., made careful deliberations before deciding that the impeachment decisions should be put to the House, the last stage (a full House debate) was curtailed. This should not have happened, although I believe that after a full debate, the decision that Corona should face a Senate impeachment would still have been made.

Any sign that the Executive Branch is interfering with Legislative Branch decision-making is to be abhorred.

This is partly why we need a strong Judicial Branch, which we do not have at present.

There are examples where the Executive Branch is sidelining decisions by the Legislative Branch. In 2008, Congress passed RA 9513, the Bioenergy Act. The purpose of this Act was to provide financial assistance, via Feed-in tariffs, to fledgling technologies which will be needed if we are to generate bio-energy from solar, wind, biomass, and run-of-river hydro. But since the Act was passed, no effective action has been taken. The effect is to negate the Act altogether because any bio-energy that has been created has not had the support of feed-in tariffs. Under current conditions, the Act is superfluous.

In fact, a common technique of the Executive Branch is to develop ‘implementing rules and regulations’ which often have the effect of distorting, out of all recognition, Acts passed by the Legislature.

We are concerned that there are examples of changes being made to our way of life which do not receive the wide-ranging discussions and debate that they deserve. We are currently facing major changes to our education system but the precise specifies are unclear. We would have expected the Legislative Branch to have taken a more active interest. This is to ensure that the full implications of what is currently being decided by a few DepEd civil servants are subject to full public scrutiny and debate.

Ultimately, if there are unpalatable consequences, then we would expect the Judicial Branch to be involved. The IBP letter says that the only weapon of the Judicial Branch is ‘the passive power of judicial review.’ But if the community, one of the five Pillars of Justice as confirmed by the Ombudsman recently, gives due respect to the Judicial Branch, then this ‘passive’ power has major ramifications indeed.

*****

I hope that, even at this late stage, Chief Justice Corona decides to resign. If so, he does the Nation a great service. His resignation leaves the way open for a new Chief Justice to be appointed who could ensure that the Judicial Branch retrieves its lost powers.