REVGOV? IMPEACHMENT BLUES
CHIEF Justice Art Panganiban, in his typically edifying November 19, 2017 column, along with many other constitutional scholars, seems to assume casually that the removal of Marcos in 1986 was not in accord with the 1973 Constitution.
The 1973 Constitution I call siopao; the barangays were said to have been convened, and asked who wanted siopao—almost all attendees raised their hands. The Comelec tallied the raised hands as “Yes.” I wasn’t aware though of any such assembly being held in the places I was familiar with. In any event, our Constitutions of 1935 (Art. VII, Sec. 9), 1973 (Art. VII, Sec. 9) and 1987 (Art. VII, Sec. 8) all say that a President’s term may be
The people “removed” Marcos in 1986, to local and world acclaim. Erap was “removed” in 2001, at which the world, puzzled, looked askance, but which “removal” arguably, was not unconstitutional, on the basis of the constitutional language. However, the Supreme Court instead ruled that he had resigned, on the weird basis of outside world and to some of us natives. But, “removal” could have led to a revolutionary government (revgov) and the wise justices could have found themselves jobless, as in 1986. Hence, resignation, as one theory goes.
Erap’s removal
Erap’s lawyers (I wasn’t one of them yet) had prudently advised that he write to the Senate Prez and the Speaker that he was stepping aside due to temporary disability, not stepping
down. He did so and was the last one to know he had resigned kuno.
When I orally argued the case in the Supreme Court, there was no discussion I could recall on resignation. But, if a justice had raised the issue of whether he was “removed” by some people and the military, in the same way we removed Marcos, I might have had little wiggle room. But the justices may have realized that their own tenure might be in jeopardy.
We need a law on the procedure on resignations, to clarify such issues as to whom Comelec Chair Andy Bautista should have submitted his resignation. In the US, Nixon submitted his letter to the Secretary of State, as explicitly provided by 3 US Code Sec. 20.
My attempts to have such a local clarifying law did not get anywhere in the 1987-1992 Senate. It’s time someone in the legislature started the process of lawmakers would rather probe in aid of something and impeach, also in aid of something. I fret about the way Congress expects a guest to check the Bill of Rights at the door.
Cross-examination in impeachment
Impeachment may lead to the capital penalty of removal and the target should be given every leeway. Sporting and fair was what guided a US House panel in the impeachment of Federal Judge Alcee L. Hastings. It granted the defense “the extraordinary prerogative of his counsel [Terence J. Anderson] to question any of the witnesses, if he so chooses, for up to the point of 10 minutes”.
cross-examination was allowed in preliminary investigations. In one case, us, as counsel, to cross-examine. I learned a lot watching famed iconic soft-spoken Doy Quisumbing cross. Marcos removed that right, facilitating the prosecution of “subversives.” Impeachment is suigeneris, in a class by itself, and the House should consider allowing it, to mitigate its image as an extension of Malacañang.
Sereno’s offense
Chief Justice Sereno’s basic offense, from where I sit, is asserting judicial independence, which may get in the