THE BEAUTY OF CHECKS AND BALANCE: IMPEACHMENT
When the Supreme Court gave due course to the petition of the sitting Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, to restrain the House of Representatives from carrying out an impeachment proceeding against her, there were members of the House who criticized the High Court for intruding on a matter viewed to be exclusively political, and essentially the domain of the political branch of government. In a limited sense this is correct.
The power to impeach an impeachable officer like the Ombudsman is granted by the Constitution to Congress. The Ombudsman can only be removed from office by the process of impeachment. Incidentally, the same holds true with respect to the highest official, the President, and the Justices of the Supreme Court, who like the Ombudsman are themselves impeachable officers.
Impeachment is basically an exercise of political power and not judicial, because those who sit in judgment are the Senators who belong to the legislative branch of government. The principle of separation of powers between the three major branches of government, namely the executive, legislative and judicial is the underlying logic. The delineation drawn by the Constitution between the political branches of government, on the one hand, and the judicial branch on the other, is the parameter which guides the exercise of power by the separate branches of government, operating under the fascinating checks and balance principle.
To the mind of some members of the House of Representatives, taking the hard-line stand, the Supreme Court cannot interfere in the impeachment process undertaken by the Lower House because impeachment is the exclusive domain of Congress and therefore a political question not judicial. There were some who even pushed for open defiance of the status quo order of the High Court, if only to dramatize the point. To the acute observer the move could have led to a constitutional crisis, where two major branches of government collide. But this is only taking the short view.
From the side of The Supreme Court there is no question that the Court has the constitutional mandate not only to decide the constitutionality of a law, but to inquire into the constitutional propriety of the exercise of power by the political branches of government. It is ultimately the court which could decide whether a particular issue is judicial or political, since the court is the guardian of the Constitution. It is not for Congress or for some congressmen to determine whether a particular issue is judicial or political. Only the court can. There is no question that the impeachment power is vested upon Congress. There is likewise no question that The Senate as an impeachment court is the judge in impeachment cases and its judgment could neither be reviewed, interfered with, nor set aside by the court. There are however specific grounds prescribed by the Constitution to warrant impeachment like culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust or other high crimes.
The Supreme Court entertained the petition of Ombudsman Gutierrez, since she raised genuine constitutional issues, particularly the constitutional ban on more than one impeachment proceedings within the year. Here the High Court did not intrude into the sanctity of Congress’s domain. The High Court was exercising its judicial power to inquire, whether or not, the manner in which the impeachment proceedings was initiated, violated the provisions of the Constitution. By assuming jurisdiction, the Supreme Court does not assert supremacy over Congress, but only performs its constitutional duty to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution.
Eventually the court decided that the Lower House could proceed with the impeachment process since there was no violation of the Constitution. It was a close vote of 7-5-2 against the Ombudsman’s petition. To me this is the beauty constitutional democracy. The interplay of checks and balance of power.
No comments:
Post a Comment