Did Corona block Pnoy’s reforms?
IMPEACHMENT, it’s stressed ad nauseam, is both a judicial and a political process. While evidence and due process are supposed to govern their deliberations, legislators must ultimately decide in the best interest of the people, not just the strength of the charges.
Hence, in the House of Representatives votes on the impeachment of then- President Gloria Arroyo, congressmen cited reasons other than the alleged offenses in voting for or against her removal.
Many cited the adverse economic impact of replacing a seasoned leader and expert economist amid soaring oil prices and tough fiscal reforms. Others warned of more unrest if protesters, having tasted Arroyo’s blood, would want Noli de Castro’s too.
So what are the political stakes in the Corona impeachment?
For President Benigno Aquino 3rd and his speed-reading Congress allies, the avowed political reason for wanting Chief Justice Renato Corona out is the advancement of Pnoy’s reform agenda, especially his election pledge to probe, prosecute and punish corruption in the past regime. They contend that Corona has blocked Aquino’s anti-graft initiatives by favoring Arroyo era officials in Supreme Court decisions.
For the moment, set aside the question of whether a Chief Justice should be held responsible for the tribunal’s collegial rulings. Just ponder Pnoy’s assertion that its decisions impeded his war on graft, especially the junking of the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC, created by his first Executive Order) and orders delaying House impeachment proceedings and suspending the Justice Department’s watch-list order (WLO) barring the Arroyos from going abroad.
In fact, the 10-5 High Court ruling against the Truth Commission EO intimated a way to make it comply with the Constitution: just state explicitly that the PTC can investigate all previous administrations, not just Arroyo’s. Another option, suggested by then-aquino legal adviser and retired appeals justice Magdangal Elma: let the Presidential Commission on Good Government, whose creation had repeatedly been affirmed as lawful, do the PTC’S job. The PCGG, where Elma had also served, can investigate any matter assigned by the President.
Hence, if the Palace appended an ‘s’ to the EO 1 phrase ‘investigate the past administration’, or if Pnoy just told the PCGG to add the Arroyo Administration to the commission’s current mandate of running after the Marcos regime, then Aquino’s drive to hold his predecessor accountable could have been served. As it happened, of course, his chosen Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, who replaced the impeached and resigned Merceditas Gutierrez, is now doing the work he wanted for the PTC.
What about the High Court TROS stalling the Gutierrez impeachment and suspending the WLO on the former First Couple? The first ruling did not stop the impeachment, but merely delayed it. Corona critics argue that even deferment was a grave offense.
However, consider if no TRO was issued while hearing Gutierrez’s objections to the proceedings, and then her protests later proved valid. The Supreme Court would have had to void all the work done by Congress on the charges against the Ombudsman, and she would have been immune from impeachment for a whole year. Is that better than delaying her ouster for a few months just to make sure no legal issues would invalidate the process?
On the WLO restraining order, it is quite possible, if not probable, that Gloria Arroyo would be under bone therapy abroad today, not hospital arrest in Quezon City, if the High Court ruling allowing her to leave were followed. Hence, it may be easy to accuse the justices of nearly helping the former president evade charges now filed against her in the Pasay and Sandiganbayan courts.
That is, until one considers that the Aquino Administration and the Ombudsman could have blocked her departure without resorting to the legally dubious WLO if they had charged her in court months ago. After all, plunder complaints against Arroyo had been filed with the Department of Justice since July 2010, and the Office of the Ombudsman accelerated its probe of the former president soon after Gutierrez quit last February.
Hence, if one were to apportion blame for any failure to keep Arroyo in the country, then shouldn’t the DOJ and the OMB also share responsibility? Ombudsman Carpio Morales and Justice Secretary Leila de Lima might argue, however, that they can’t be faulted for painstakingly compiling evidence before going to court. Well, by the same token, the Chief Justice and his TRO-supporting colleagues should not be castigated for ensuring that the constitutional right to travel was not violated by state actions not allowed by law.
So, did the Corona Court retard the Aquino assault on graft? Or was the real culprit his government’s inadequate legal work criticized by both constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas and Aquino longtime family friend Senator Joker Arroyo?
And going back to the collegial decision argument, will removing Corona make things easier, since most of his fellow justices had ruled much the same way as the CJ? Yes indeed, impeachment advocates might retort, his removal would warn other magistrates to support the Pnoy agenda — or else.
Therefore, Honorable SenatorJudges, will you join 188 of your fellow lawmakers in holding the impeachment gun to the heads of the Supreme Court justices? Ricardo Saludo serves Bahay ng Diyos Foundation for church repair. He heads the Center for Strategy, Enterprise & Intelligence, publisher of The CENSEI Report on national and global issues ( report@censeisolutions.com).