Atty. Mel Sta. Maria is the Dean of the Far Eastern University Institute of Law and Professor at the Ateneo de Manila School of Law.
She is under siege.
The first woman Chief Justice of the Philippines, Maria Lourdes Sereno and the youngest to be appointed as such, is the subject of impeachment attempts. And the media seems to give attention to these events.
But are these impeachment raps newsworthy?
Yes, but only as examples of how a constitutional remedy is being perverted.
Impeachment is a most delicate political process. It is undertaken exclusively for the commission of the most serious offenses directly against the State: culpable violation of the constitution, treason, bribery, high crimes, graft and corruption, and betrayal of the public trust. These grounds are exclusive. Even assuming the truthfulness of all the reported-accusations against Chief Justice Sereno, they do not fall within the purview of the aforementioned “impeachable” offenses.
The constitution requires “culpable violation”, not mere violation. This connotes a malicious intent and a premeditated scheme to directly and seriously injure the State. That is why even if President Duterte, the highest impeachable officer of the land, is responsible for the execution the laws, he cannot, for purposes of impeachment, be held liable for every death of any citizen as a result of the failure of local authorities. In the same vein, not every delay in the prosecution of cases in our court-system may subject the Chief Justice to direct liability also for purposes of impeachment. There is absence of “culpable violation.”
Treason involves going to war against the Republic. Bribery is receiving money or other gifts in exchange for unwarranted favors. High crimes imply more than a simple infraction of the law. There is nothing in the reported acts – buying a bullet-proof vehicle, alleged administrative irregularities and non-payment of taxes – that have been substantiated. No wonder, as to the VACC petition, no congressman/woman wanted to endorse it. Simply, it is insufficient in form and substance.
Graft and corruption deal with a furtive mind to prejudice the government. The purchase of a bullet proof vehicle allowed by the Supreme Court hardly qualifies as graft or corruption. The vehicle may not be cheap but, considering, these dangerous times, it is needed. Using the word “extravagant” in the purchase is designed to create a semblance of wrong-doing when there is actually none. Also, President Rodrigo Duterte, Vice President Leni Robredo, Senate President Koko Pimentel, and Speaker of the House Pantaleon Alvarez are likewise entitled to the same privilege. Some members of the lower house and the senate may even have two or more bullet proof vehicles. If they can purchase them, why cannot Chief Justice Sereno do so too?
And then there is that much used but abused generic ground of “betrayal of the public trust”. The trust given to the Chief Justice is to take care of the administration of justice. Betrayal connotes a perfidious sell-out and a willful repudiation of that duty. Nothing that even approximates that high level of malfeasance exists. As per newspaper reports, many of the allegations in the impeachment-petitions involved complaints by, if not squabbling among, Supreme Court justices as to administrative matters allegedly prompted by the Chief Justice’s brand of leadership.
These are not “betrayals” contemplated by the Constitution. They do not dangerously affect the public as a whole and the survival of the state. Probably, they only roused the ire, if not pricked the ego, of some few people inside and outside the court.
Many view the denunciation against Chief Justice Sereno as a result of professional jealousy caused by her unprecedented and historic appointment. That is not farfetched. And because she brought with her new plans for reforming the institution, her attempts at innovations were confused for, or odiously projected as, an insensitive disregard for long standing rules and privileges.
And, in the same breath, resistance to change exhibited by her detractors were mistaken, if not foisted, as preserving tested procedures, rather than a fastidious grip on obsolete practices retarding the administration of justice.
And yet the impeachment petitions reached the House of Representatives. If they are entertained, the perversion of the process continues – improvidently using valuable time which otherwise can be spent for crafting important legislation. It will be a waste of tax-payers’ money.
On a positive note, however, this is a great opportunity for the House of Representative to have its shining moment. And this can be done, not by allowing the cases to prosper, but by dismissing them outright. It will be a statement that the House is truly a deliberative body composed of thinking men/women who cannot be used or bought by powerful lobbyists and interest groups desirous only of the ouster of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, not judiciously but by sheer depthless numbers.
Not surprisingly, President Duterte had already declared the executive’s hand-off policy on the impeachment. Most likely, just like in the Usurpation of Authority case filed against former President Benigno Aquino III, President Duterte knows that the cases are as flawed, shallow and unmeritorious as they can be – a situation of “much ado about nothing” where the denouement is inevitable – dismissal.
In the final analysis, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno poses no grave danger to the nation, does not subvert our democratic institutions, and is not a menace to the third great branch of government – the judiciary.
How can such impeachment cases prosper? Only when their champions in Congress are totally warped in their advocacies.
