Real score

Confusion abounds as to the real score on the stand of the eight amici curae (friends of the court) regarding the issues raised in the petitions questioning the impeachment of Chief Justice Davide. This happens when there is a mix-up and fusion of the different classes of issues involved. For accuracy, it is necessary to separate the substantive from the procedural, the substantial from the technical issues. Or better still, the primary from the secondary.

The primary issue here, that goes to the very root of the conroversy, is simply whether or not the so called second impeachment complaint signed by two congressmen and endorsed by some 84 of their colleagues is in accordance with the Constitution. On the other hand, the procedural issues are: whether or not there is an actual case or controversy on the constitutionality of this second complaint raised by the proper party; and whether or not a decision on this constitutional question is already necessary to the determination of the case itself at this stage of the proceedings.

On the substantive issue, at least five (5) amici curae, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., retired SC Justice Florenz Regalado, CA Justice Regalado Maambong, Former Senate President Jovito Salonga and UP Law Dean Raul Pangalangan expressed a clear and categorical opinion that the second impeachment complaint is not in accordance with the Constitution. The three others, Retired SC Justice Hugo Gutierrez, Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza, and former Law Dean Pacifico Agabin did not make a clear yes or no answer on this point, although Justice Gutierrez seems to say by implication that the second impeachment move is constitutional when he opined that the SC has no jurisdiction to interpret the impeachment provision.Declaring lack of jurisdiction by the SC is in effect upholding the constitutionality of the second impeachment complaint.The same may be said of Agabin’s position when he said that the congressmen did not commit any grave abuse of discretion. But his position became unclear when he also conceded that there may be grave abuse of discretion only that it should be determined by the Senate in due course of the impeachment process. Former Sol. Gen. Mendoza has no opinion at all on this issue as he limited himself to the legal standing or "locus standi" of the petitioners to bring this case. So, is the second impeachment complaint constitutional? Five(5) say no, it is not; one(1)impliedly says yes; one(1) maybe yes or no; and one (1), no opinion.

Bernas, Regalado and Maambong consistently maintain the position that since the action of the congressmen is unconstitutional, it is a grave abuse of discretion and therefore within the legitimate province of the SC to resolve at this stage.This is a legal, not a political question so there is no need to wait for the Senate action on the impeachment complaint, according to them. Implied in their stand on this procedural issue is the recognition of the legal standing of the petitioners to bring this suit before the SC.

Salonga and Pangalangan, however, maintain that while the act of the congressmen is unconstitutional, it is not yet ripe for the SC to step into the picture. They say there is no urgent need for the SC to act on the matter because it should be the last resort of the parties concerned. The SC can act on it only after it has reached the Senate.Agabin concurs with them on this procedural issue although he also maintains that the Congressmen may not have committed a grave abuse of discretion. Gutierrez on the other hand is also consistent in his position that the SC should dismiss the petition outright since this is a highly political issue, solely within the power of the legislature to decide. Mendoza is also of the opinion that the petitions should be dismissed because the petitioners are not the proper parties in interest who should file it. So, should the SC junk the petition outright without touching on the constitutionality of the impeachment move? Three(3) say no; three(3) not yet and two(2) yes.

As gleaned from these positions of the amici curae, there is a direct clash of opinions only on the non-existence of a political question, and on the legal standing or "locus standi" of the petitioners. These are indeed the two crucial elements in the exercise of judicial power of review. The political question angle has been previously discussed (see Constitutional Supremacy, Phil Star, Nov. 7, 2003), so let’s focus on the "locus standi" doctrine.

A party litigant has a legal standing or "locus standi" if he is able to show such a personal stake in the controversy as to assure a concrete adverseness in the issues submitted( Flast vs.Cohen, 392U.S.83). It is inextricably connected to the judicial power and duty "to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable". In this jurisdiction, the principle of "locus standi"is considered mere technicalities of procedure and may be brushed aside to admit the so called taxpayers’ or concerned citizens suits if the issues are of transcendental importance to the public and "in keeping with the Court’s duty under the 1987 Constitution, to determine whether or not the other branches of government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws, and that they have not abused their discretion( Kilosbayan vs. Guingona 232 SCRA 110).

Based on prevailing jurisprudence on the political question and the locu standi, as well as on the real score of the positions taken by the amici curae, it is safe to conclude that the Supreme Court decision on the controversy will be based on solid legal grounds.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]