WHAT IS THE NATURE OF IMPEACHMENT?
First. The matter
of impeachment is a political question that must rightfully be addressed to a
political branch of government, which is the Congress of the Philippines. As enunciated in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora,[3]
we do not automatically assume jurisdiction over actual constitutional cases
brought before us even in instances that are ripe for resolution -
One class of cases wherein the Court hesitates to rule on are
“political questions.” The reason is that political questions are concerned
with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not the legality, of a particular act or
measure being assailed. Moreover, the
political question being the function of the separation of powers, the courts
will not normally interfere with the workings of another co-equal branch unless
the case shows a clear need for the courts to step in to uphold the law and the
Constitution.
Clearly, the constitutional power of impeachment rightfully
belongs to Congress in a two-fold character:
(a) The power to initiate impeachment cases against impeachable officers
is lodged in the House of Representatives; and, (b) The power to try and decide
impeachment cases belongs solely to the Senate.
In Baker v. Carr[4]
repeatedly mentioned during the oral arguments, the United States Supreme Court
held that political questions chiefly relate to separation of powers issues,
the Judiciary being a co-equal branch of government together with the
Legislature and the Executive branch, thus calling for judicial deference. A controversy is non-justiciable where there
is a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a
coordinate political department, or a lack of judicially discoverable and
manageable standards for resolving it."
But perhaps it is Nixon v.
United States[6]
which provides the authority on the “political question” doctrine as applied in
impeachment cases. In that case the U.S.
Supreme Court applied the Baker
ruling to reinforce the “political question” doctrine in impeachment
cases. Unless it can therefore be shown
that the exercise of such discretion was gravely abused, the Congressional
exercise of judgment must be recognized by this Court. The burden to show that the House or the
Senate gravely abused its discretion in impeaching a public officer belongs
exclusively to the impeachable officer concerned.
Second. At all
times, the three (3) departments of government must accord mutual respect to
each other under the principle of separation of powers. As a co-equal, coordinate and co-extensive
branch, the Judiciary must defer to the wisdom of the Congress in the exercise
of the latter’s power under the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution as a
measure of judicial comity on issues properly within the sphere of the
Legislature.
Third. It is
incumbent upon the Court to exercise judicial restraint in rendering a ruling
in this particular case to preserve the principle of separation of powers and
restore faith and stability in our system of government. Dred
Scott v. Sandford[7]
is a grim illustration of how catastrophic improvident judicial incursions into
the legislative domain could be. It is
one of the most denounced cases in the history of U.S. Supreme Court
decision-making. Penned by Chief Justice
Taney, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 7-2, denied that a Negro was a
citizen of the United States
even though he happened to live in a “free” state. The U.S. High Court likewise declared
unconstitutional the law forbidding slavery in certain federal
territories. Dred Scott undermined the integrity of the U.S. High Court at a
moment in history when it should have been a powerful stabilizing force. More significantly, it inflamed the passions
of the Northern and Southern states over the slavery issue thus precipitating
the American Civil War. This we do not
wish to happen in the Philippines!
It must be clarified, lest I be misconstrued, this is not to say
that this Court is absolutely precluded from inquiring into the
constitutionality of the impeachment process.
The present Constitution, specifically under Art. VIII, Sec. 1,
introduced the expanded concept of the power of judicial review that now
explicitly allows the determination of whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. This is evidently in response to the
unedifying experience of the past in frequently resorting to the “political
question” doctrine that in no mean measure has emasculated the Court’s authority
to strike down abuses of power by the government or any of its
instrumentalities.
CAN THERE BE JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE IN AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS?
While the impeachment mechanism is by constitutional design a sui generis political process, it is not
impervious to judicial interference in case of arbitrary or capricious exercise
of the power to impeach by Congress. It
becomes the duty of the Court to step in, not for the purpose of questioning
the wisdom or motive behind the legislative exercise of impeachment powers, but
merely to check against infringement of constitutional standards. In such circumstance, legislative actions
“might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the
consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response
despite prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence.”[8]
I must, of course, hasten to add by way of a finale the nature of the power of
judicial review as elucidated in Angara
v. Electoral Commission[9]
–
WHAT IS A CONSTITUTION? WHAT IS JUDICIAL SUPREMACY?
The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government. Who
is to determine the nature, scope and extent of such powers? The Constitution
itself has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary as the rational
way. And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries,
it does not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in
reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the
solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine
conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the
parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and
guarantees to them. This is in truth all that is involved in what is termed
“judicial supremacy” which properly is the power of judicial review under the
Constitution (underscoring supplied).
