GMA vows to defend vs attack on the ‘last bastion of the rule of law’

President Arroyo said yesterday the executive branch would stand against any institutional attacks on the Supreme Court, the country’s "last bastion of the rule of law," from the defense lawyers of her deposed predecessor Joseph Estrada.

The President made this commitment as she took up the cudgels for the high court as SC Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. finally broke his silence on the attempts of the Estrada defense panel to have the Sandiganbayan subpoena them as witnesses in questioning the legitimacy of the Arroyo administration.

"The executive stands against any institutional attacks against the Supreme Court," she said. "The last bastion of the rule of law must be inviolable. We are a republican system and we must ensure the institutional stability of the three branches of government."

Estrada lawyer Alan Paguia filed a motion to summon the President, Davide, Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes, and Supreme Court Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Renato Corona and Artemio Panganiban to the stand.

Estrada wants Mrs. Arroyo to testify that she had illegally grabbed the presidency with the collusion of Davide and the other SC justices, who swore her into office on Jan. 20, 2001 amid a military-backed popular revolt against the incumbent.

Estrada’s allies have also lodged an impeachment campaign against Davide and several members of the high bench before the House of Representatives for their alleged role in Estrada’s downfall.

The House has yet to act on the complaint.

"This is some sort of an institutional attack and so we will meet the issue as soon as we receive the complaint," Davide said in comments aired over ABS-CBN television Thursday.

Estrada’s unorthodox legal strategy to gain acquittal from charges that he plundered $80 million is based on the assertion that he was illegally toppled by a military coup abetted by the SC during the EDSA II revolt.

The President denounced the other day what she called the "pure harassment and dilatory tactics" of the Estrada defense counsels seeking to put her and justices of the Supreme Court on the witness stand as part of their defense strategy for Estrada, who faces a possible death sentence if convicted of the plunder charges against him.

The Palace insisted upon the legitimacy of Mrs. Arroyo’s assumption of office, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. As the "sitting President," Mrs. Arroyo is immune from any court summons.

Davide said the Supreme Court en banc will discuss the apparently "sinister moves" against the judiciary and determine the appropriate action to take in response to these moves.

"We have to wait for a copy of the impeachment (complaint) and I will submit it to the court because the issue is not just the individual, but the court itself," Davide said.

He added they will wait and see whether or not the Sandiganbayan will issue a subpoena based on Paguia’s motion.

The chief justice said "the darker side of the human element appears to be gaining ground."

Davide said this adverse development was worsened by "the shrillness of the political atmosphere in the country today, the acrimony of the political debate caused, in part, by the jockeying for position in the 2004 national elections and sinister moves to destroy an institution, which is the last bulwark of democracy and the guardian of the rule of law and of the Constitution."

SC Justice Josue Bellosillo said the high court cannot prejudge the propriety of the Sandiganbayan’s summoning them to the witness stand. Corona and Carpio refused to comment on the issue.

Former SC justice Sabino de Leon, however, said there seems to be no basis for the impeachment and motion to summon the justices because of the two-year delay between Estrada’s ouster and his defense panel’s moves.

"It’s filed out of time because the rule of law also includes respect for our procedural law," De Leon said. "Specifically, it means that when the decision of the Supreme Court has become final, that’s it. That’s part of the law of the land — and there is only a certain period within which to file a motion for reconsideration," he added. — With Aurea Calica, AFP