Defend SC from ‘breakneck impeachment’ – IBP

The leadership of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines has expressed its support to Chief Justice Renato Corona, who was impeached by the House of Representatives for alleged graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, and betrayal of public trust.   In a statement, the IBP expressed “grave concern over the breakneck impeachment of the Chief Justice based on grounds that subvert the constitutional allocation of powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court.   It also called “upon the stakeholders and the pillars of the justice system to rally behind and defend the Supreme Court as an institution of democracy.”   The country’s official organization of lawyers – membership of which is required under the Constitution in order to practice law – held a press conference at the IBP Building in order to issue the statement regarding the impeachment of Corona.   “As [the] sentinel of freedom and democracy, the IBP considers the breakneck and high-handed impeachment delivered by the House as a menace and an open subversion of the constitutional prerogatives of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the law and arbiter of rights,” declared the IBP statement.   “While we support the reform agenda of the President, its implementation must respect – and not subvert – the constitutional allocation of powers,” it added.   It also said that by impeaching Corona based on decisions issued by the Supreme Court, the House is “in effect arrogating unto itself the power to interpret the law over and above the Supreme Court.” “Such an impeachment has transformed the House of Representatives as the higher interpreter of what law is, a clear encroachment on the prerogatives exclusively vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court itself,” the group said.   But the IBP statement failed to mention that under Article XI of the Constitution, once the Articles of Impeachment are transmitted to the Senate, then it is up to the upper chamber of Congress sitting as an impeachment court to decide whether the impeached official should be acquitted, removed or censured.   The statement noted that “[t]he impeachment has placed on trial not only the Chief Justice but the entire Supreme Court,” pointing out that “[t]he grounds invoked to impeach the Chief Justice refer to collegial decisions” of the high court.   The Supreme Court is composed of 15 justices, including the Chief Justice. While a decision may be written by only on justice – called the ponente – the decision is promulgated by the entire court as a collegial body after a majority vote is had by all the concerned justices of the court en banc or of the division.   “In all of the cited cases, the record shows that the Chief Justice was not the ponente but merely concurred in the majority or minority opinion. Neither did the Chief Justice flip-flop or change his position in any of these cases,” pointed out the IBP in its statement.   “Even the two other grounds cited in the [articles of] impeachment – failure to submit the [Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth] and account for the [Judicial Development Fund] and [Special Allowance for the Judiciary] collections - also involve the assertion by the Supreme Court of its fiscal autonomy,” said the statement, citing a 1992 SC resolution requiring high court justices to file their SALNs directly with the SC Clerk of Court “in keeping with its independent status.”   The fiscal autonomy of the judiciary as guaranteed by the Constitution has long been a bone of contention with Congress, which legislates the budget of all government agencies, as well as with the executive department which implements the budget. - KBK/KG, GMA News