Not Among Equals

The impeachment proceeding of the Chief Justice has marvelled every ordinary intellectual and the highly-legalistic observers. Since it is viewed by the many, the main actors –the senator-judges- must conduct themselves in a manner which partakes of cold neutrality, in order to avoid the evil suspicion of being bias to one party or another. Above all, they must speak with the resemblance of possessing wisdom and philosophy considering that they have been elected at large by the Filipino people. However, there was one senator-judge who bravely declared before the honourable impeachment court and before the entire nation to the effect that the senate sitting as an impeachment court is like no other, that being so, it can pass upon any matter and invoke its authority on it, regardless of any boundaries set forth under the constitution.

In other words, he gallantly aired his conviction that the impeachment court is supreme to that of the highest court of the land. Logic and reasoning will never subscribed to such proposition. As pointed by Fr Joaquin Bernas, in his article on the PDI 01/23/12, he states in part that “Incidentally, this is not a question of who, between the Senate jury and the Supreme Court, is superior. After all, the Senate jury is no other than the same upper house of Congress. The Senate jury is not a distinct body from the Senate but is the same Senate given non-legislative authority to be exercised occasionally. The three departments of government are coequal, working in coordination with each other. When faced with a situation in which they seem to appear to be an immovable force pushing against an immovable wall, what is constitutionally demanded of them is to look for ways of working together.” The rationale, therefore, would fall on the premise that the senate is a body given by the constitution the sole authority to try and decide impeachment cases and it is not licensed to venture in an expedition to any other branch of government without the sacrifice of the doctrine of separation of powers.

In an indirect democracy such as ours, we are supposedly ruled with statesmen who are equipped with reason and wisdom. While they may commit blunders in their acts, it must not be so gross as to view them unreasonable and ignorant. Having been reposed the responsibility of representing the people, they must act with the highest mode of intellectual propriety.