Four retired Supreme Court justices were asked, as friends of the impeachment court trying Vice President Sara Duterte, to help interpret the constitutional provision that says two-thirds of all senators are needed to convict the accused in an impeachment case.
Three said that the threshold is not necessarily 16, the number is not immutable. The fourth one said it is, under any circumstance.
Former Chief Justices Hilario Davide Jr., Artemio Panganiban and Reynato Puno held the majority view. Former Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna was the lone dissenter. He is from Mindanao; to be specific, Katipunan, Zamboanga del Norte. Davide is from Cebu while Panganiban and Puno are from Manila.
They are learned men, highly esteemed in the Bar and in the Bench, each with vast experience in interpreting the law and the Constitution. But it does not change the fact that their opinion is just that—an opinion no matter how compelling and logical it may be.
Only the hopelessly naive will believe that the senator judges will change their minds, especially those who have openly and without a trace of embarrassment displayed since day one their partiality to one side. They are and will never be ready nor willing to cast aside their preconceived notions and view the constitutional question (two-thirds of how many) through a clear, unprejudiced lens.
If it’s any consolation, the senators do not have the final say. Regardless of the result, any vote on whether “it is absolutely” 16 or “it depends” will be elevated to the Supreme Court for review.
In the past, the High Court was cautious in assuming jurisdiction over matters that belonged to another branch of government because of the principle of separation of powers.
But the lines separating a political from a justiciable question have been blurred. The Constitution now expressly defines judicial power to include determining “whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.”
Thus in 2003, the Supreme Court struck down a second impeachment complaint filed by allies of deposed President Erap Estrada against then Chief Justice Davide because it was barred by the Constitution.
A portion of the decision that quoted a much older case is worth quoting again because of its relevance:
“In times of social disquietude or political excitement, the great landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof.”
These are such times.