UPDATES ON

THE HOSTAGING OF THE SENATE

In February, when the Supreme Court issued the TRO against disclosing the alleged dollar accounts of  Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, I was prompted into writing about the  possible scenario of the Senator-Judges defying such TRO. (The article was titled The Hostaging of the Senate, among the posts in this Blog in February) I feared that in that event, there would be a head-on collision between the Judiciary and the Legislative – a constitutional crisis erupting into just the kind of situation that would satisfy someone’s design to institute a one-man rule in the country.

Read More

This fear was not unfounded. Senator Franklin Drilon had declared quite unequivocally that the Senate Impeachment Court was “a class of itself”, not at par with the three co-equal branches of government, which are the Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary. This could only mean that the Senate Impeachment Court did not have to be subordinate to the Supreme Court on the TRO issue and hence could defy it.

It was such a relief that the position of Senate President Juan Ponce to respect the TRO prevailed by a vote of 13 to 10.

But with Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales presenting evidences of the alleged Corona dollar accounts, the TRO issue must crop up once more. It has never been lifted so that the acceptance by the Senate Impeachment court of the Morales evidences on the alleged dollar accounts must constitute a defiance of the TRO.

That the defense had not sought to block the presentation of the Morales evidences by reason of the TRO is intriguing. It does not help that the Senator-Judges are the ones to pass judgment on whether those evidences are legal or illegal. The point is, there is the TRO prohibiting the presentation of such evidences, and yet despite this the impeachment court proceeded to accept the same.

What sanctions can the Supreme Court issue to the Senate Impeachment Court for such defiance? If such sanctions are indeed issued, would Senate abide?

Or are those sanctions to come after the impeachment court shall have finally ruled on the acceptability of the Morales dollar accounts evidences?

At the same time, there is a pending motion by the defense at the Supreme Court for the Senate to stop the proceedings on grounds of certain legal infirmities in the articles of impeachment filed by the House of Representatives. What if tomorrow the Supreme Court resolves that motion favorably, i.e., ordering the Senate Impeachment Court to stop the proceedings, will the impeachment court obey?

In his opening statement in Tuesday’s hearing, CJ Corona made it very clear that he was addressing not just the impeachment court but also the people at large. None of the Senator-Judges found cause to raise a comment or observation on this Corona pronouncement, but was it not in fact a declaration that he was not getting himself bound by any restraining mechanism of the impeachment court.

For one thing, CJ Corona did not come by virtue of a subpoena. So he was at the venue by no order of the impeachment court. And Defense Counsel Serafin Cuevas DID NOT make any formal presentation of the Chief Justice as witness. Justice Cuevas did refer to a “witness” being summoned, but the Senate journals would bear out that he never offered the Chief Justice as a witness. CJ Corona strode into the Senate Hall as though an invited guest of honor in some occasion, there to deliver his speech at the podium, which was the witness’ stand.

He took the witness’ oath, yes. But was he making the oath to the impeachment court? No word in that oath indicates that he was doing it to the Senator-Judges. What he swore was to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” And he told the truth. But as to whether he was subjecting himself to the authority of the impeachment court, his answer came in not so many words: “I am not the only one who is on trial here. You and me. All of us are on trial before the people and the nation…”

CJ Corona was under no compulsion to act according to certain protocol of court. He came to address the nation and then left after making his closing statement: “The Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines wishes to be excused.”

It does no matter that after walking away he came back. It does not make any change in CJ Corona’s stand. He was under duress when he returned to the Senate hall on a wheelchair. As the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms admitted on television, CJ Corona was coerced to stay.

In none of CJ Corona’s conduct that Tuesday afternoon did he manifest the attitude of one subjecting himself to court authority. For this reason, if, indeed, all of a sudden the Supreme Court orders to stop the Senate impeachment proceedings, such an order shall only have made his comportment perfectly proper; there were no court proceedings to condescend to.

As to the Senate, it shall have reeled in supreme dilemma.

If it obeyed such an order by the Supreme Court, it would be shirking its constitutionally-mandated responsibility, something Presiding Senator-Judge Juan Ponce Enrile time and again swore never to abandon, deciding on which never to be influenced by anyone. Worse, since obeying such an order would in effect be acquitting CJ Corona, it would be giving way for an upheaval the likes of the turmoil spawned by the non-opening of the second envelope in the impeachment trial of President Joseph Estrada.

If, on the other hand, it chose to defy such an order, it would be throwing the nation into a crisis the extent of which is, again, just the kind of situation that would justify one man’s ambition for totalitarian rule.

Certainly such a situation would give the Chief Executive reason enough to call in the armed forces.

Inevitably, then, we reiterate the conclusions reached in the original article.

The minute the Senate took cognizance of the Articles of Impeachment filed by an eager beaver House of Representatives and then shortly after constituted itself into an Impeachment Court to try the impeachment charges, it became hostage to the mechanism set to motion for the declaration of martial law. 

Read More