The Davide Impeachment Case: Restating Judicial Supremacy over Constitutional Questions

Transcription

1 The Davide Impeachment Case: Restating Judicial Supremacy over Constitutional Questions Maricris C. Ang, * Mark Leinad R. Enojo, ** Divina Gracia P. de Ia Cerna,*** and Rosalyn C. Rayco**** I. INTRODUCTION II. T,HE PRECEDENTS OF THE CASE i\the Myth and Reality cifjudicial Supremacy B. The Political Question Doctrine and Exercise cifjudicial Restraint Ill. FRArJr;:Isco V. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: IY. ThE F;\CTS OF THE CASE ThE GoURT's DECISION A. Art. 376 and 412 of the Civil Code B. Rule 103 and 108 of the Revised Rules of Court V. ANALYSIS: ThE COURT'S ADHERENCE TO CONSTITUTIONAL PRIMACY VI. CONCLUSION I. INTRODUCTION Never bifore in the 1oz-year existence of the Supreme Court has there been an issue as transcendental as the one bifore us. For the first lime, a Chiif Justice is subjected to an impeachment proceeding. The controversy caus~d people,jor ~nd against him, to organize and join rallies and demonstrations in various parts of the country. Indeed, the nation is divided which led Justice Jose C. Vitug to declare during the oral arguments in these cases, "God save our country!"' 8I5 8I7 8I8 82 I * '04 J.D., cand., Ateneo de Manila University School of Law. Editor, Ateneo Law Journal. ** '04 J.D., r:and., Ateneo de Manila University School of Law. Editor, Ateneo Law Journal. *** 'o6 J.D., cand., Ateneo de Manila University School of Law. Editor, Ateneo Law Journal. **** 'o6 J.D., cand.,ateneo de Manila University School of Law. Editor, Ateneo Law Journal. Cite a: 48 ATENEO L.J. 8o6 (2004). 1. Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No , Nov. ro, 2003 (Sandoval Gutierrez,J., separate and concurring opinion). 2003] JUDICIAL SUPREMACY 807 In the face of what was perceived as a looming constitutional crisis at the height ofchiefjustice Hilario Davide's impeachment, different parties pursued various options to break the impasse between the Legislature and the Judiciary. Lawmakers and politicians believed that a political solution was the most appropriate.' The Executive and the political parties also stepped into the fray and pursued informal talks in support of a "win-win" solution) However, asserting that they possess standing to sue as citizens, taxpayers,4 members of the Integrated Bar,s members of the House of Representatives 6 and that the issues of the case were of transcendental importance,? several parties chose to submit the controversy for judicial determination. Premised upon a belief that an authoritative and substantial decision from the Court would resolve the issues with finality, such judicial option was invoked. This act of seeking a resolution within the legal framework rather than a political compromise affirms the belief in the supremacy of the Constitution and the law over politics and personalities. II. THE LEGAL PRECEDENTS OF THE CASE A. The Myth and Reality l!f Judicial Supremacy The Constitution exclt,sively vests upon the Supreme Court the power of judicial review as part of its judicial powers. 8 It is only the Judiciary which has been given the express mandate to declare an act unconstitutional. During his sponsorship speech in the I986 Constitutional Convention, Commissioner Roberto Concepcion, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, elucidated that the Judiciary, as the final arbiter on questions of constitutionality, exercises 2. Carlita Pablo & Gil Cabacungan, Solution to Crisis at Hand-De Veneda, THE PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, Oct. 27, 2003, at I. 3 Marichu Villanueva, GMA Sees Win- Win Solution, THE PHILIPPINE STAR, Nov. 4, 2003, at 1. In G.R. No , petitioners Sedfrey M. Candelaria, et a!., sued as citizens a!jld taxpayers.in G.R. No. I6o263,petitionersArturo M.de Castro and Soledad C;~garnpang, invoked their capacities as citizens and taxpayers. 5 In G.R. No. I6026I, petitioner Atty. Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr., alleged that he has a duty as a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to use all available legal remedies to stop an unconstitutional impeachment. In G.R. No ; petitioners Atty. Harry L. Roque, et a!., sued as members of the legal profession 6. In G.R. No. I60295, petitioners Representatives Salacnib E Baterina and Deputy Speaker Raul M. Gonzalez, came before the Court as members of the House of Representatives. 7 In G.R. No. I6o262, petitioners Candelaria, eta!., alleged that the issues of the case are of transcendental importance. 8. PHIL.CONST. art.viii I, 5

2

3

4

5

6

7

8