Should we let it be?

I finally had time to sit down and write the percolating thoughts in my mind as I read and watch the impeachment drama. This debate has brought our nation at a crossroads. Which of the two roads should our nation take? The road to impeachment or the road where every person you meet is karaoke-singing the song “Let It Be.” The decision and direction our nation takes hold huge potentials in transforming our society for better or for worse.

Some of our fellow Justices in the 90 million-member Sovereign Court of Public Opinion raise the alarm that the impeachment of the Chief Justice will destroy the essence of the Supreme Court as the sole institution that can decide constitutional issues. This is pointed out because the impeachment complaint accuses the Chief Justice of liability on constitutional issues that were decided by the Supreme Court as a collegial body.

The essence of the “Let It Be” argument is that if the questioned acts of an SC Justice are supported by a majority of the SC Justices, the acts cannot constitute the impeachable offenses of “culpable violation of the constitution” or “betrayal of public trust.” By gathering a majority, therefore, the SC Justices can render any ruling that will make one of them or all of them immune from the impeachable offenses under the Constitution. In other words, if we go by this argument, a majority of the Justices will have the power to strip both houses of Congress of their constitutional authority to determine whether an SC Justice or Justices committed impeachable offenses.

The only option left for the rest of the nation is to wait for the retirement of the Justices at which time the President can then appoint new ones. In the case of Chief Justice Corona, we will only have the option to grin and bear with him until he retires in 2018.

This position of majority-decision-equals –impeachment-immunity necessarily demands absolute obedience to all majority decisions of SC Justices. Yes, we can criticize, but at the end of the day we must obey, so goes the refrain in this argument. Thus, if a majority of the SC Justices say all who wear condoms during intercourse are mass murderers, the 45 million walking criminals can protest all they want but at the end of the day, they will have to offer their foreheads to be iron-seared with the word “criminal.” And yes, Nanay Dionesia, the walking criminals will include your favored priests and bishops. If a majority of the SC Justices shout “Jump!” we the people can scream all we want but at the end of the day, we will have to bow our heads and ask, “From which floor, your honors?”

But did we, the sovereign people, really leave ourselves defenseless if a majority of the SC Justices — constituting themselves as a judicial junta — declare half of the population as mass murderers for wearing condoms? Did we, the sovereign people, really leave ourselves inutile if a majority of the SC Justices declare us as criminals if we take a peek at their assets and liabilities?

Did we, the sovereign people, really leave ourselves powerless if a majority of the SC Justices declare our executive leaders criminals for preventing an ultra corrupt and mass murder-coddling former President from leaving the country even if the latter has not complied with a conditional TRO?

The “Let It Be” argument is based on a popular but wrong premise: that the Supreme Court is the only constitutional body that has EXCLUSIVE and FINAL power to determine constitutional issues. I know this goes against an ultra sacred doctrine taught in law school but yes, it is utterly wrong to argue that it is only the Supreme Court that is vested by the Constitution with the power to determine constitutional issues.

The “Let It Be” argument completely strips the Impeachment Court of any role in deciding constitutional issues. That is an unfortunate misreading of the Constitution. No less than the Constitution gives the Impeachment Court the power to determine whether an SC Justice has committed “culpable violation of the constitution.” This is nothing less than the power to determine the CONSTITUTIONALITY of an SC Justice’s action(s). This is nothing less than the Constitution vesting in another body — other than the Supreme Court — the power to decide on constitutional issues.

In his private capacity, an SC Justice violates criminal laws. It is only when he performs his judicial functions as a Justice — e.g. when he individually concurs to a collegial decision — will he be susceptible of committing an unconstitutional act and, therefore, liable for culpable violation of the constitution.

How then can we reconcile the powers of the Impeachment Court vis a viz that of the Supreme Court on constitutional issues? What happens if an act of an SC Justice is declared by the Supreme Court as constitutional while subsequently the very same act is found by the Impeachment Court as a culpable violation of the constitution? Will there be a constitutional crisis as others warn?

There will be no constitutional crisis because the Constitution designed the conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court and the Impeachment Court to have different results.

When the Supreme Court renders a decision declaring a certain act to be constitutional, that decision becomes the final adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties; it also becomes a valid jurisprudence, no matter how wrong the decision is. The story ends there as far as the conflict between the case parties is concerned.

However, for the rest of the country, the story does not end there. After the SC decision becomes final, there arises the issue of whether the SC Justices abused their powers, or to use the exact words of the Constitution, whether the Justices committed a “culpable violation of the constitution” when they voted as they did.

This is the second constitutional issue that will come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Impeachment Court this time. And this is the remedy that the sovereign people reserved for themselves to deal with SC Justices who blatantly abuse their powers by deciding in favor of black when the Constitution explicitly mandate them to decide in favor of white, so to speak.

The effect of a decision of the Impeachment Court finding the acts of the Justices to be a culpable violation of the constitution is not to reverse or overturn the decision of the Supreme Court, because the SC decision is already final. The only effect of an Impeachment Court finding of unconstitutionality is to remove the SC Justice from office and to permanently prohibit him from holding any other public office in the future.

There are still so many things that I want to say but if I expand this article to 12 pages, I may get awarded with a Doctor of Laws degree, summa cum laude, without my consent. I am not sure I would like that. I would be paranoid going around town with people calling me Doctor, triggering people to line up in front of me to demand that I treat their colon cancer, gangrene or, God forbid, perform a quadruple heart bypass pronto.