All rise for the amici curiae (1)
In math, it is the ‘bottom number in a fraction that shows the total number of equal parts making up a whole.’ In this case, 24 is the whole and the denominator is 3, and therefore 2/3 of 24 is 16.
Text size
In math, it is the ‘bottom number in a fraction that shows the total number of equal parts making up a whole.’ In this case, 24 is the whole and the denominator is 3, and therefore 2/3 of 24 is 16.
Amici curiae, or friends of the court, are intended to guide the senator-judges late in the game on how to execute the mind-boggling “two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate,” one that cynics suspect is subtle gerrymandering over an essentially non-issue, if not a sophist-styled gobbledygook.
Forget not that Senator Erwin Tulfo’s manifestation triggered the whole idea to get amici curiae to provide guidance over the unsettling conviction threshold, albeit an anachronistic departure from an ex-ante ruling made by the impeachment court at the outset, that of a categorical 16 as the two-thirds of 24 senators.
Former Supreme Court chief justices Reynato Puno, Artemio Panganiban and Hilario Davide, and SC Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna responded to the call, with Davide submitting his memorandum in lieu of his attendance. The impeachment court also received a memorandum from Fr. Ranhilio Aquino of San Beda. It was only Davide’s submission, however, that was read into the record.
Now, what expert legal insights, nay, wisdom was shared with the senator-judges, adversarial parties and viewing public by the amici curiae as the proverbial “oracles of the law,” “anchors of the Constitution,” “guardians of justice,” “final arbiters”?
Before going to an overview, what funny little strange things did we hear that we found difficulty figuring out? With no pun intended, some uttered “amicus curiae” as if they thought it to be the plural form, except it’s not. They did not bother to learn the correct plural form, which is “amici curiae.”
For another, not a few referred to a “denominator” as the base or the number of senators, except it’s not so by definition. The 24 representing the entire Senate membership is the base number; the denominator in the fraction 2/3 is the number below the fraction, or 3.
In math, it is the “bottom number in a fraction that shows the total number of equal parts making up a whole.” In this case, 24 is the whole and the denominator is 3, and therefore 2/3 of 24 is 16. Put another way, 1/3 of 24 is 8, plus another 1/3 of 24, therefore, makes 16.
Third, two schools of thought were mentioned — the first proceeded from literal interpretation and the second from contextual and functional edification, otherwise simplified as literalism vs. contextualism. Apparently, these two approaches are found in published SC cases, albeit not yet applied judicially to resolve a 2/3 impeachment threshold.
Fourth, but not least, and quite disturbing is that while one chief justice subscribed to and prescribed Avelino vs Cuenco as a precedent, another amicus curiae absolutely abandoned the view.
While there has been implied consent not just from the presiding officer but the opposing parties as well for the input that will be culled from the various erudite views, the defense counsels only knew too well the inherent effect upon their position and the fate of any resultant precedent, school of thought, analogy or parallelism, shoe-fits-all formula, or bitter pill to guide the senator-judges in solving the math quiz or the English grammar game.
Thus, no less than the defense at the outset rendered an ad cautelam to articulate its reservation against any future injury the proceeding might bring upon their client. In no uncertain terms, VP Sara’s other spokesperson took the whole charade as intended to reduce the conviction threshold to commandeer the official narrative.
This piece might mimic the so-called “irreverence of classical scholars” if only to critically unbundle some glaring uncertainties and ambiguities put across by the amici curiae who were supposed to roll out specialized insights of law and jurisprudence, if not legal hermeneutics.
From a moral-philosophical standpoint, its overarching effect is more to the peril of the defense than of the prosecution.
“Alas, them all got money than Colonel’s got chicken.”
(To be continued)
