|
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
House to abide SC decision on Davide complaint
MANILA -- "The chair is constrained to respect the decision of the Supreme Court." This was House Speaker Jose de Venecia's statement when the Lower House debated on the impeachment complaint against Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.
"We are in a situation whereby in the face of defiance the Supreme Court will ask the President (Arroyo) to enforce its decision."
De Venecia's announcement was in answer to the query made by Camarines Sur Representative Rolando Andaya whether the House would respect the SC's decision.
Voting 13-1, the Supreme Court en banc's decision declared Monday the second impeachment complaint filed against Chief Justice Davide Jr. as unconstitutional because it violated the time-bar rule of the Constitution.
"Thirteen of the justices said the decision (of the House of Representatives to launch an impeachment complaint against Davide) is unconstitutional," court spokesman Ismael Khan said in a press conference at the SC 1 p.m. Monday.
The House wants to impeach Davide on charges he mishandled public funds -- an accusation he has denied.
At least three justices, Josue N. Bellosillo, Renato C. Corona and Consuelo Yņarez-Santiago, voted in favor of upholding the petitions asking the SC to strike down the impeachment complaint against Davide. They nevertheless believe the Supreme Court should have exercised "judicial restraint" or at least allowed the Senate to have first crack on the case.
Justice Reynato S. Puno, on the other hand, dissented against the majority decision, saying it was not necessary for the High Tribunal to rule at this time on the constitutionality of the impeachment case filed against Davide by Reps. Felix William Fuentebella of Camarines Sur and Gilberto Teodoro of Tarlac.
All 14 justices, however, believe the SC has jurisdiction over the petitions. Davide inhibited himself from the case.
Khan said the decision, penned by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, was 111 pages long.
In it, the SC cited Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits the filing of another impeachment complaint against an impeachable public official within one year after a similar case has been filed.
Emotional
In the Lower House, the atmosphere turned emotional when de Venecia declared the impeachment complaint unconstitutional by submitting to the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the complaint.
The debate became so heated to the point that Maguindanao Rep. Didagen Dilangalen moved to declare all seats in the House vacant. This threatened the leadership of de Venecia.
The session was suspended for awhile, and then resumed for the nominal voting. As of press time, the voting was still going on.
Representative Francis Escudero, spokesman for the Nationalist People's Coalition (NPC) Party whose members were behind the impeachment move, said the party accepts the court ruling.
However, he warned that the justices should bear full responsibility "should there be anarchy in the streets."
Escudero, interviewed in a late night newscast, said the Articles of Impeachment would no longer be transmitted to the Senate. His statement was made while the House was still hearing the nominal voting.
De Venecia said his position is being supported by majority of the congressmen.
"(The) majority supports the decision of the SC. It's very clear. It (the second impeachment complaint) has been declared unconstitutional. How can you transmit it? The Senate will not receive it," De Venecia said. A total of 188 congressmen attended Monday's session.
The sponsors of the impeachment attempt denounced the court ruling, but President Arroyo pledged to uphold it.
A majority of 140 members of the 226-seat House of Representatives agreed at a caucus Monday to block further moves to transmit the complaint to the Senate for trial, Representative Florencio Abad said in local television.
"We will respect that (Supreme Court) decision and we will abide by it," Abad added.
Ruling
In the 111-page decision penned by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the High Court said a portion of the impeachment rules (Secs. 16 and 17 of Rule V) drafted in Nov. 28, 2001 by the House of Representatives is unconstitutional and "consequently therefore, the impeachment complaint filed by Reps. William Felix William Fuentebella (of Camarines Sur) and Gilberto Teodoro (of Tarlac) last October 23 is 'barred' by the constitutional prohibition against the filing of two impeachment complaints within a one-year period."
The High Tribunal said decisions on precedent cases in the US that say that impeachment suits are best left to the legislature are not binding on them.
"American jurisprudence and authorities much less the American Constitution are of dubious application for these are no longer controlling our jurisdiction and have only limited persuasive merit insofar as Philippine constitutional law is concerned," the SC said.
The High Court also said the difference between the judicial power of the Philippine SC and that of the US SC is that "while the power of judicial review is only impliedly granted to the US Supreme Court and is discretionary in nature, that granted to the Philippine Supreme Court and lower courts, is not just a power but also a duty and it was given an expanded definition."
The SC cited two precedent cases in the late 90s -- the 1998 case of Santiago versus Guingona and the 1997 case of Taņada versus Angara -- wherein the SC ruled on matters that may be considered to be in the exclusive power of the legislative department.
"It is clear that judicial power is not only a power, it is also a duty which cannot be abdicated by the mere specter of this creature called the political question doctrine," the SC ruled.
Citing the effort to prevent "disquietude and political excitement", the High Tribunal said, "The exercise of judicial restraint over justiciable issues is not an option before the court. Abdication may not be declined because this court is not legally disqualified. Nor can jurisdiction be renounced as there is no other tribunal to which the controversy may be referred."
Moment of joy
Davide, in a television interview, said the SC's decision "is really a moment of joy also because this is not just my victory. It is the victory of the people who took the noble cause and make it their own cause. This is the victory of our country. This is the victory of democracy."
Davide said the court's decision declaring the impeachment complaint unconstitutional therefore makes it null and void from the very beginning.
"I don't know how Congress will act on it. It has to respect the decision of the court because the court is the sole arbiter on constitutional issues," Davide said.
Asked about his reaction on the latest development, "it strengthened my fidelity to God because you have to rely on God's blessings and providence in times of crisis."
Reactions
Meanwhile, Justice Sec. Simeon Datumanong said the Department of Justice (DOJ) will respect the SC's decision.
"Let us accept the decision of the Supreme Court. It is the final arbiter of constitutional issues. It will be good for our country and democracy. Abide by the decision of the SC and uphold the rule of law," Datumanong said in a statement Monday.
One of the eight amici curiae (Friends of Court), former SC Associate justice Hugo Gutierrez said that he still stands by his earlier opinion that the SC should not rule on the case.
Another amicus, former University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law dean Pacifico Agabin warned parties involved in the impeachment issue against defying the SC's decision.
"That's the ruling. If the House defies the ruling, they can be held liable for contempt. The decision immediately takes effect today (Monday)," Agabin said.
The SC earlier asked for the views of eight amici curiae regarding the impeachment complaint.
Guillermo Luz, executive director of the Makati Business Club, said they are delighted by the SC's ruling.
He hoped that with the SC ruling, it would resolve the crisis besetting the country.
He said in an ANC interview that "the country's welfare should prevail over machismo", apparently hitting at congressmen who still insist on the impeachment case despite the High Tribunal's decision.
Wait-and-see
The senators have agreed to wait for the next move of the House of
Representatives before deciding on whether to archive the impeachment complaint or resolve it through an impeachment trial.
However, Senate President Franklin Drilon said Congress should respect and abide by the SC.
"I will abide by and respect the decision of the Supreme Court, not because I agree with it but we have to think of the greater public interest," said Drilon in a separate interview aired over ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC).
The senators also agreed to meet after the complaint formally reaches the Senate.
"Insofar as the transmittal is concerned, there are two schools of thought. One school says that the complaint must be transmitted by the Secretary-General, pursuant to the proceedings of the House. The other school of thought is that the 76 signatories, can transmit it to us physically and at that point we will have to hold a caucus again," Drilon said.
On the other hand, Sen. Ralph Recto said there are at least six senators who support the stand of Drilon that it is important to respect the decision of the High Tribunal. Those senators are Manuel Villar; Francis Pangilinan; Joker Arroyo; Noli de Castro; Recto and Drilon.
He warned that if the impeachment complaint has been transmitted to the Senate there are at least three expected scenarios that include disrespect of the SC's decision; a constitutional crisis and derailment of the passage of bills and deliberations on the 2004 budget.
At the House of Representatives, congressmen engaged in a heated debate over the transmittal of the impeachment complaint.
After a few hours, de Venecia declared he has no choice but to abide by the SC's decision, an announcement that was met by applause from pro-Davide supporters and boos from anti-Davide groups.
Uphold
President Arroyo said, "We shall follow the solemn duty to uphold the decision of the High Court and we shall enforce any directives issued by it. Let no one misunderstand or doubt our resolve to preserve and protect the Constitution. We did not come this far in our long history as nation to establish constitutional democracy just to tinker with its basic principles."
Arroyo assured that there will be no constitutional crisis but she continued to push for her proposed tripartite covenant. "A principled covenant is still the best way forward," she said.
She said she remains hopeful that Congress and the Supreme Court "will act with a congruence and faith and with the highest national interest in mind."
"We have prayed all along for unity and reconciliation and we trust in the noble intentions of everyone involved," she said.
Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo, in a press briefing, said the High Court has the "full and wholehearted support" of Malacaņang.
Romulo said while the pro-impeachment camp could still appeal the decision, the Palace hopes the issue would be settled "within the shortest possible time".
He said it would be up to the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives if they still want to push through with the tripartite covenant. He said the covenant does not conflict with the High Court's decision.
He said Arroyo's statement of support for the Supreme Court is already a signal to all government agencies that they must do everything in their power to ensure that the Constitution and the law are enforced. Benjamin Pulta/JPM/ST/Sunnex Luzon
(November 11, 2003 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
|
|
 |
| click
to comment on this article or discuss it with other readers |
[return to top]
[home]
|
|
