High court vs low sense

The Supreme Court (SC) has put its foot down on the cavalier use of the impeachment process for political gain and, in a rare move, directed Congress, a coequal branch, to strictly adhere to constitutional requirements.

Contrary to critics’ claims, the ruling that finally upheld the rejection of the steps taken to put Vice President Sara Duterte on trial did not introduce anything new.

Instead, the Tribunal called on the legislature to faithfully observe the Basic Law in pursuing the removal of a public official.

It underscored the nature of public office as a public trust, indicating that impeachment is a robust democratic process to ensure accountability.

“But impeachment can be abused. It has never been imagined in our basic law as a tool for the powerful to maintain the status quo, to maintain a political faction in power by silencing independent, strident, and insistent critics,” according to the main decision authored by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

In a separate opinion, Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario reminded Congress that constitutional limitations on the impeachment power “exist to ensure that its exercise remains measured and even-handed, even in times of political turbulence.”

He added that limitations are especially vital because impeachment almost invariably unfolds amid political turmoil.

“It is often initiated in moments of crisis, heightened public emotion, and intense partisan contestation. In these circumstances, there is a real and ever-present risk that the political branches may be tempted to act with bias, or that party allegiance and political expediency may eclipse the sober demands of constitutional duty.”

The High Court’s unanimous decision, in turn, also cautioned that impeachment should never be abused to maintain the hegemonic dominance of greed by shaming those who occupy high government positions, preventing them from discharging their duties.

“This is why impeachment has been designed so that it is not merely a political process initiated by mere allegations or by perceived public acclaim shaped by the propagandistic effect of timed press releases or irresponsible viral posts on social media,” according to the SC.

It differentiated between partisan efforts against a high official and a genuine objective of preventing the abuse of power.

“Justice works not with the speed of social media commentary but with the due, deliberate, conscious and impartial consideration of issues properly framed and with evidence fairly presented,” the Tribunal said.

The SC’s mandate, according to the judgment, is to check abuses by examining the process and ensuring that its interpretation of the rules, the law and the Constitution cannot be used to undermine the values and the goals embedded in the impeachment process.

It added that the onslaught of generated outrage cannot sway the court.

“Every justice who sits in this Court should have the moral courage to have that foresight and the conscience to decide justly, even if their decision produces a result contrary to their political predilections.”

The Supreme Court made it clear that judicial decisions are not crafted for political convenience.

Those insisting that the Tribunal had an agenda in its recent ruling on the aborted ouster of VP Duterte would do well to read the decision first.

In taking on the Supreme Court, the critics are unwittingly exposing a shortage of gray matter.