Impeachment of SC justices is a long shot

LOGICAL LINE: Impeachment of several justices of the Supreme Court is an expected, because logical, twist in the continuing saga of Joseph "Erap" Estrada trying to regain the presidency that he lost in 2001 to then Vice President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo.

The line of the Articles of Impeachment is simple: Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and several justices violated the Constitution when they participated in Mrs. Arroyo’s installation on Jan. 20, 2001, despite the fact that Mr. Estrada was still there as incumbent president.

Named respondent with the Chief Justice were Associate Justices Artemio V. Panganiban, Josue N. Bellosillo, Reynato S. Puno, Jose C. Vitug. Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Antonio T. Carpio and Renato C. Corona.

They are accused of culpable violation of the Constitution, other high crimes, and betrayal of the public trust.

* * *

BOOK – EXHIBIT A: In his impeachment complaint filed for him by lawyer Rene A. V. Saguisag, Mr. Estrada quoted copiously from the book Reforming the Judiciary written by Justice Panganiban.

(The same excerpts were quoted in Postscript last May 29 and June 1. You can review them at www.manilamail.com.)

The book recalls and gives insights into how the justices arrived at the decision to go to EDSA on Jan. 20, 2001, in response to Mrs. Arroyo’s request for the Chief Justice to swear her in. Mr. Estrada said that that partisan process violated the Constitution.

Mr. Estrada said that Davide et al., after having installed Mrs. Arroyo, had prejudged his situation and were no longer fit to sit in judgment when his cases are raised before the high court.

Yet, they still participated in hearing Mr. Estrada’s case and ruling that they considered him to have "constructively" resigned the presidency and that Mrs. Arroyo had been validly installed as president.

* * *

DISQUALIFICATION: We expect Mr. Estrada to ask for the inhibition or disqualification of the justices when his plunder case with the Sandiganbayan is brought up to the Supreme Court on appeal or on a side action.

The impeachment complaint opens another high-profile forum outside of the Supreme Court for Estrada partisans who complain that they cannot expect fairness from the high court.

But the reality is that although impeachment partakes of a judicial process, it is political. It is a numbers game, with congressmen and senators usually voting not on the basis of the law and the facts but of partisan and such considerations.

This is sad, because blind partisanship will deprive the people the right to know the correct answers to the momentous legal questions being raised in the impeachment process.

The same blind alley and dark dead-end characterized the impeachment trial of then President Estrada in 2000. The trial was scuttled in 2001 when some of the key participants walked out and the Senate leadership failed to keep the process moving.

* * *

PRESIDENT ON LEAVE: The two chambers of Congress themselves have been officially informed in separate letters sent by Mr. Estrada, when he was still president, that he was temporarily leaving the presidency in the hands of an acting president (Mrs. Arroyo).

Although dated Jan. 20, 2001, we suspect that the two identical letters were antedated. We sense that they were sent either as an afterthought or as a consequence of the secret negotiations between the Estrada and the Arroyo camps.

Theoretically, if he is still hot on the presidency, Mr. Estrada can write the Senate and the House again – to inform the legislature this time that he is now ready to resume performing his duties as president returning from leave.

A side issue, but just as pertinent, is Congress’ having confirmed the appointment of then Sen. Teofisto Guingona as Vice President in place of Mrs. Arroyo, who appointed him.

By this, it would seem that Congress itself has become a participant in the installation of a replacement president – and may, therefore, not be the impartial judge it should ideally be.

While the impeachment complaint may not prosper, for political reasons, it could serve as added basis for Mr. Estrada’s later pointing out that the justices are no longer impartial judges and must inhibit themselves from his cases.

* * *

LRT REJOINDER: We read only yesterday the rejoinder of Zosimo Mendoza, the chief of staff of the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA), to our comments on the LRT’s management and some technical aspects of operations.

He wrote that LRTA could not extend the contract of Transurb Technirail of Belgium (which had been handling maintenance and other technical chores) because "repeated extension" would violate existing laws on public bidding. Too bad, he did not mention the law.

The riding public is still in the dark as to why breakdowns are regularly occurring. The LRTA official merely mentioned that the line (as also the equipment) running between Monumento in Caloocan and Baclaran is old.

Management may want to keep commuters informed about why service sometimes bogs down or why the trains stop, instead of simply being told to get off the coaches when trouble hits.

* * *

MORE QUESTIONS: LRTA keeps saying it has the technical capability to take over from Technirail although in its contract, it admits it has none. Proof is that LRTA has hired more than 200 maintenance personnel in a matter of days around May 16.

This looks like an ad hoc group, and there is no telling if a technician or engineer is suited to his task or has the training to operate the equipment in front of him.

Mendoza explained that the Belgian company was being eased out because "competition and fairness" dictate that Technirail, which is still interested in the contract, be taken out.

But if they are suddenly invoking an unspecified law, how come they allowed Technirail to continue working last year when there was also a bidding? Why was its contract renewed several times as well after that? How many renewals – if the unnamed law indeed sets a limit – is Technirail or a similarly situated contractor allowed?

* * *

DOCTOR TAN: It’s remarkable that taipan Lucio C. Tan, who largely keeps to himself, has just been conferred another honorary doctorate (humane letters), this time by the University of Guam.

He also has an honorary doctorate (applied agriculture), given him in 2001 by the Central Luzon State University in Nueva Ecija.

The Guam university cited Tan’s "valuable contributions to higher education, generosity towards charitable causes and unending quest for knowledge and excellence." The degree was conferred by Dr. Harold Allen, UOG president, and Ronald Leach, chairman of the UOG board of regents.

Tan, who has considerable investments in that Eastern Pacific island, is also an adopted son and ambassador-at-large of Guam.

In his address before a huge crowd at the 4,000-seat UOG Field House, Tan recalled the difficulties his family encountered during the war years.

"I started life as poor as a rat, but the hardships I had to survive gave me the first solid bridge in my life," he told the graduating class. "This new feather in my cap is for my parents and all the parents who empower their children."

* * *

ePOSTSCRIPT: You can read Postscript in advance simply by going to our personal website www.manilamail.com. While at our ManilaMail.com site, you can also peruse back columns and review past discussions on specific subjects. E-mail can be sent to us at [email protected].