Corona won’t do a Gutierrez

Earlier, I posted about the similarities between the Aquino-Supreme Court TRO battle, and Thomas Jefferson’s refusal to hand over a judge’s commission (appointment), which produced the landmark Marbury v. Madison decision of CJ Marshall.

Ito, pareho na naman. TJ instigated the only impeachment of a US Supreme Court justice, Samuel Chase.

President Thomas Jefferson, alarmed at the seizure of power by the judiciary through the claim of exclusive judicial review, led his party’s efforts to remove the Federalists from the bench. His allies in Congress had shortly after his inauguration repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, abolishing the lower courts created by the legislation and terminating their Federalist judges despite lifetime appointments; Chase, two years after the repeal in May 1803, had denounced it in his charge to a Baltimore grand jury, saying that it would “take away all security for property and personal liberty, and our Republican constitution will sink into a mobocracy[.]” Jefferson saw the attack as indubitable bad behavior and an opportunity to reduce the Federalist influence on the judiciary by impeaching Chase, launching the process from the White House when he wrote to Congressman Joseph Hopper Nicholson of Maryland asking: “Ought the seditious and official attack [by Chase] on the principles of our Constitution . . .to go unpunished?”

Walo rin ang articles of impeachment. Errors in legal opinions din ang nilalaman ng ibang article, at nabanggit din ang ilang kaso, where “political bias had led Chase to treat defendants and their counsel in a blatantly unfair manner.” (wikipedia).

Bukas, makukuha ko ang libro ni CJ William Rehnquist, ukol sa impeachment na yan, na pinamagatang “Grand Inquests”. Tingnan natin kung ano ang analysis ng isang CJ.

I am not an ideological fan of Rehnquist. He is a conservative, and the people I admire have been liberals – William Douglas, Hugo Black, John Paul Stevens.

But Rehnquist earned my unqualified respect when he penned Dickerson v US, which affirmed Miranda v. Arizona, despite the fact that Rehnquist had always been against the Miranda doctrine.

Yan ang jurist. Una ang saligang batas bago ang sariling pananaw. Sana ay tularan sa atin – ng mga hukom at mga senador.

Here are more similarities:

1. At the time of Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration, there were six justices in the Supreme Court. TJ made only one appointment, in 1804; William Johnson Jr., replacing Alfred Moore.

2. TJ’s Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress.

3. The recommendation for impeachment was also railroaded at the committee level. The five Democratic members met without the presence of the two Federalists, and drafted the report.

4. On the floor, the vote was 73 to impeach and 32 against.

5. The Senate, at that time, was composed of 34 members. There were 25 Democrats and 9 Federalists. The prospects for Samuel Chase looked bleak, if votes were cast along party-lines; because the Democrats had two more than the required two-thirds vote (two-thirds of 34 is 23).

Considering their strength, TJ’s party already had plans afoot, to impeach all Supreme Court justices, including TJ’s cousin, Chief Justice Marshall.

Magandang bakbakan ito. They were the founding fathers of the United States. Samuel Chase was a signatory of the Declaration of Independence; the paper where TJ penned that famous line quoted by Abe Lincoln, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….”

Less known is the fact that TJ owned slaves. Maybe he meant “all white men are created equal.” The guy who quoted him, Honest Abe, had no such mental reservation; he emancipated the slaves.

May problema na naman ang blog na ito.

You have to log in bago makabasa. That limits the audience.

Yan pa naman ang lakas ng blog, na maraming nagbabasa.

Impeachment was not a criminal prosecution….And a removal by impeachment was nothing more than a declaration by Congress to this effect: You hold dangerous opinions, and if you are suffered to carry them into effect you will work the destruction of the nation. We want your offices, for the purpose of giving them to men who will fill them better.

Sinong nagsabi niyan? Niel Tupas? Leila De Lima? Lacierda?

Justice Chase was being impeached for errors in judgment (decisions). His answer:

“this respondent thinks that his conduct was correct in expressing to the Counsel of Fries the opinions stated above. He is not bound to answer here for the correctness of those (legal) principles, though he thinks them inconstestable; but merely for the correctness of his motives in delivering them (Chase’s rulings). A contrary opinion would convert this Honorable Court (impeachment court) into a Court of Appeals;”

Annals of Congress, Senate, 8th Congress, 2nd Session
Pages 111 & 112 of 1704

Available here:

memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwaclink.html (lagyan ng “http://”) sa harap.

A Constitutional issue is always a question of power – or authority, if you will; whether or not the institution preuming to exercise the authority has been granted the power by the Constitution. An example is the prayer of the Lolas (the plagiarism case) to compel the Executive to file a claim against Japan.

When the House questions the Supreme Court about a decision, it is saying that the Supreme Court is wrong, and the House is correct. But who determines the proper interpretation of the law? It is the Courts. The House, therefore, is presuming to exercise a power it is not clothed with. That is why Justice Chase said that if the Senate (impeachment court) censures Chase for errors in judgment, it is turning itself into a Court of Appeals (appeals from the court). The same is true with respect to the House in the Philippines.

The question, as Justice Chase’s defense team said, is not whether or not a decision is correct or not, per se, but whether or not the decisionmaker is clothed by the Constitution to render the decision.

Parang basketball yan. No matter how spectacular your shot is, hook shot, running jump shot, etc., but you were outside the line when you threw the ball, not counted, kahit pumasok.

To decide that Corona, or the Supreme Court, erred, is for the Senate to clothe itself with the power to interpret the law. The Senate can do so, only with respect to the power granted to it by the Constitution, which is to determine what is an impeachable offense – to determine what is meant by “public trust”, for instance.

If the House believes the Supreme Court decision is wrong, it can exercise its power by amending or repealing the law – repeal the CamSur law, for intance, or repeal the law creating cities.

If the issue is interpretation of the law, the Congress can also seek to amend the Constitution. That is how the US Congress has responded to issues where it believes the Supreme Court of the United States has erred in interpretation of the Constitution. In each Congress since 1973, for instance, in the wake of Roe v. Wade, constitutional amendments or statutory provisions have been introduced to prohibit abortion. They have been discussed in committee, but none have been passed by either House.

There is an opinion by a law dean that asserts that Abe Lincoln defied the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dred Scott case by emancipating the slaves.

This needs clarification.

It was not palin defiance. There was constitutional basis for Abe Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation. He did it under his war powers, as Commander-in-Chief. In fact, the proclamation was not in effect in the states that did not secede. So it was not actually defiance of the Supreme Court.

Lincoln issued the Proclamation under his authority as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy” under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution. As such, he had the martial power to suspend civil law in those states which were in rebellion. He did not have Commander-in-Chief authority over the four slave-holding states that had not seceded: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware.

The Emancipation Proclamation was never challenged in court. To ensure the abolition of slavery everywhere in the U.S., Lincoln pushed for passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. Congress passed it by the necessary 2/3 vote in February 1865 and it was ratified by the states by
December 1865.

wikipedia

Note, Honest Abe pursued the action I recommend above. He did away with the Supreme Court decision upholding slavery by passing a Constitutional amendment.

So much for defiance.

baycas2:

Manipis sa akin ang issue ng pagtanggap ng appointment.

One is impeached for acts violative of the Constitution. What is the unconstitutional act, if ever? Gloria’s appointment. The other, if ever, will be the decision of the justices, upholding a convoluted interpretation of the Constitution.

I am on record as opining that the decision of Lucas Bersamin was downright stupid. You’ve seen my post at raissa robles’ blog.

But since the majority declared the appointment valid, then Corona’s acceptance is valid as well.

To impeach, one must first declare that it is not valid. But does the impeachment court have the power to declare a Supreme Court decision invalid? That, then lends validity to Chase’s argument; that the impeachment court presumes to be a Court of Appeals of Supreme Court decisions.

Kunin sa misbehavior, not error of judgment. Yan ang pinakavalid na paraan. Then you will have the backing of historical experience.

Paano ipinamamalas ang kapangyarihan ng taumbayan? Sa balota. Iyan ang naging tugon ng mga taga-California sa usapin ng gay marriage.

Natalo ang mga humahadlang sa gay marriage sa California Supreme Court, kung kaya’t naghain sila ng susog sa Saligang Batas ng California, ang Proposition 8. Doon ipinamalas ng taumbayan ng California ang kanilang hangarin, at panalo ang Proposition 8 noong 2008.

Sa katunayan, pangalawang beses na ito. Ang unang paghain ay noong 2000, sa pamamagitan ng Proposition 22.

Popular naman si Noy, so kung talagang ibig niyang gamitin ang lakas ng taumbayan, maaari silang maghain ng susog sa Saligang Batas.

Whoever dictates the terms of battle wins.

Kung magsusuntukan si Doc Holliday at Mike Tyson, talo si Mike Tyson. Kung barilan, walang silbi ang laki ng katawan ni Mike Tyson. Sa isang iglap, may tama siya.

Kung maghamon ng barilan si Mike Tyson, hindi niya puwedeng magalit at sabihin kay Doc Holliday, huwag mo akong paandaran ng mga caliber-caliber and other gun mumbo-jumbo. Pinili ni Mike Tyson ang barilan, matuto siyang bumaril.

Ganoon din, pinili ng mga nagpaparatang (House) ang impeachment; kaya magkakaroon ng trial. Sa ayaw man nila at sa gusto, magkakaroon ng legal mumbo-jumbo, dahil procesong legal ang ginagawa. Kaya nga si Jinggoy nag-aaral na daw kay Manong Johnny.

Sinusuri ko ang mga paratang ng articles of impeachment, dahil iyan ang magiging paksa ng bakbakan sa trial. Kung baga, nag-aaral akong bumaril; dahil gagamitin ang mga nilalaman ng Saligang Batas bilang bala sa barilan ng argumento.