SC ruling on Corona ‘involuntary retirement’ is judicial legislation

“By

declaring Corona as ‘involuntarily retired,’ the SC evidently stepped into the realm of constitutionally frowned-upon judicial legislation.

“Under

the principle of separation of powers, the SC cannot review the finding of guilt arrived at by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.

Just recently, the Supreme Court (SC) unanimously granted the application for retirement and other benefits filed by the widow of the late Chief Justice

(CJ) Renato Corona.

The late CJ was kicked out of office in May 2012 after the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, convicted him for his failure to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth. He passed away in April 2016 at the age of 67.

In a decision dated 12 January 2021 and written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC ruled that the effect of an impeachment conviction only extends to removal and disqualification from office, and does not affect entitlement to retirement and related benefits. The SC also held that a public officer removed from office by conviction in an impeachment case, but whose civil, criminal or administrative liability was not judicially established may be considered “involuntarily retired.”

Further, the SC said there is no law which mandates the automatic cancellation of the post-employment benefits of a public official convicted and removed from office by reason of impeachment. Invoking equity, the SC said retirement laws are liberally construed in favor of beneficiaries. The SC also noted that Corona was already eligible for optional retirement when he turned 60 years old earlier in October 2008, and said mere eligibility for optional retirement at the time of death, and not actual retirement, is enough to grant survivorship benefits. Earlier, the court attorney of the SC recommended to deny the survivorship claim because Corona neither retired nor resigned, which, therefore, makes him ineligible for retirement benefits.

The SC, however, said the court attorney’s recommendation has no legal basis.

In sum, the SC ruled that Corona had “involuntarily retired” as CJ and his widow is entitled to survivorship benefits even if the Senate convicted and removed Corona from office for committing a serious offense. With all due respect to the SC, its ruling is not infallible. While, as the SC said, there is no law which mandates the automatic cancellation of the post-employment benefits of a public official convicted and removed from office by reason of impeachment, there is also no law which allows the SC to declare an individual “involuntarily retired.”

By declaring Corona as “involuntarily retired,” the SC evidently stepped into the realm of constitutionally frowned-upon judicial legislation.

The last time the SC engaged in judicial legislation of catastrophic consequences was when it declared there was “constructive resignation” on the part of President Joseph Estrada when he left Malacañang for security reasons after violent anti-administration crowds threatened to attack the Palace in 2001.

In doing that, the SC unseated an elected president by adding into the Constitution a hitherto legally inexistent ground for declaring a vacancy in the Office of the President.

The SC was very strict when it dealt with President Estrada, who was elected to office by the sovereign Filipino people. Why then was the

SC lenient and liberal when it dealt with CJ Corona, who is a mere appointed public official? Is there truth to the suspicion that justices tend to protect one of their own?

Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution provides that an impeachable public officer “may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust,” which are, undoubtedly, very serious offenses.

Under the principle of separation of powers, the SC cannot review the finding of guilt arrived at by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court. That is why Corona did not even bother to ask the SC to review his conviction by the Senate.

Logically speaking, therefore, when Corona was found guilty and removed from office by the Senate sitting as an impeachment tribunal, Corona is guilty of any of those very serious offenses enumerated in Section 2, Article XI of the charter — a finding that is binding on the SC.

Since the finding of the Senate is binding on the SC, the SC cannot simply invoke equity and subsequently rule that Corona is entitled to retirement benefits because he is deemed to have “involuntarily retired” from office.