Chief under siege
By Carlos Isagani T. Zarate

"KINAKABAHAN ako dito," (I'm worried) was how lawyer Hildegardo Iñigo, dean of the Ateneo de Davao Law School, describes the congressmen's move to impeach Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. Offhand, Iñigo believes the impeachment complaint, the second against Davide since June, is an "orchestrated move" and part of a scheme "to discredit the country's institutions."

After the controversies and scandals that rocked both the executive and legislative branches, Iñigo said the Supreme Court is the "only one left unscathed."

"What is more disturbing is who or which group is just staying in the sidelines and manipulating all these moves," he says, echoing the warning of many experts that Davide's impeachment may plunge the country into another constitutional and political crisis. I am afraid that this warning is not baseless.

With the resolution of the House committee on justice dismissing the complaint filed by the men of deposed President Joseph Estrada against Davide and the other justices yet to be tackled by the House in plenary, the impeachment initiated and affirmed by the congressmen last Thursday is legally questionable. Whether justified or not, the partisan and political character of the impeachment move cannot be mistaken. The issue of the alleged mismanagement of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) is only a thinly veiled subterfuge to pressure the Supreme Court for political and economic reasons, including some of the latest landmark cases decided by the Davide Court like the Marcos hidden wealth and the coco levy fund.

But beyond the legitimacy and wisdom of the charges hurled against Davide, it is perhaps the issue of initiating a second complaint that will surely become the bone of legal contention. Although the Constitution automatically allows a verified complaint endorsed by at least one-third of the House members as the Articles of Impeachment, thus, justifying immediate trial by the Senate, this must be read with the other related provisions.

Article XI, Section 3, paragraph 5 of the Constitution states that "no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more that once within a period of the same year."

As pointed out by constitutional experts, the filing of the second anti-Davide complaint is barred by the Constitution as it occurred within the same year.

Constitutional law professor Paul Montejo agrees. "The Constitution did not distinguish whether it is for the same offense or not.

What is clearly forbidden is the initiation of the same proceeding in the same year against the same official, which in this case is Chief Justice Davide," Montejo explains.

Like many others, I am also confident that Davide can very well defend himself and assert the independence and fiscal autonomy of the Supreme Court from this unprecedented political assault. However, the nagging question on the proprietary of the second impeachment complaint must be resolved first since the impeachment process is considered as a "formidable weapon" and a "remedy of last resort."

With a constitutional question looming, the question now is who will resolve the impasse? The Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all constitutional questions will likely be placed in a possible no-win position and an extended head-on collision with the initiators of the Chief Justice's impeachment. That scenario is apparently what the pro-impeachment group wants, to put the high court in a more negative light.

To avoid such a crisis, the ball is now in the Senate. "The Senate, as the impeachment court, can declare that it has no jurisdiction or authority yet to hear the second complaint because a condition precedent -- the non-initiation of another impeachment proceeding within one year-has been violated," Montejo says. Failing that, we are definitely heading for another long undeserved crisis.

* * *

Eclipsed by the Davide impeachment was the passage into law of Republic Act 9227, which upgrades the compensation of judges and justices. The law, principally shepherded by Sen. Francis Pangilinan, is one of the reforms aimed at further strengthening the judiciary and the administration of justice. Ironically, it is Chief Justice Davide himself who pushed for these reforms. In the book "Monitoring the State of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession," the Social Weather Stations cited low pay, among others, for the lack of judges in many courtrooms across the nation. Low pay is also cited for corruption in the judiciary.

This salary reform should also be extended to other court personnel -- clerks, stenographers, sheriffs and others -- who comprise the bulk of the judiciary's employees and who are also the most vulnerable to loan sharks and to temptations of corruption.

* * *

His infancy goes quickly. The unseeing eyes, the fanciful chuckles and dainty curls; the sudden whimpers and unexpected jabs -- they're all yesterday's. Now, he explores and probes everything. He communicates with us, like an adult, although the innocence remains. Xandro Ysagani, my only child, celebrates his fifth birthday today. Told that he is somewhat lucky because when I was celebrating my fifth, the country was then in chaos because of the impending declaration of martial law, his innocent answer floored me: "Nakita ko sa TV marami man din gulo ngayon." (The TV shows we are also in chaos.)

Nonetheless, I wish XYZ and his generation may learn from the history of their elders!

Comments to karlos_z23@hotmail.com or kar_laws@yahoo.com