Justice Marvic Leonen wrote that the impeachment is a political process but it cannot be isolated from the Constitution and ergo, from the requirements of due process. It may be sui generis but it cannot be viewed beyond the ambit of the Constitution. The House did not act on the three complaints. The same were not referred to the Committee on Justice, ergo, they were deemed terminated after being archived when Congress adjourned. After the three impeachment cases had been archived, the one-year rule then applies, barring the House of Representatives from sending to the Senate the fourth complaint. Hence, there is no valid complaint sent to the upper chamber, to begin with. Without a valid complaint, how can there be a trial?
Fighting for what is right is also about fighting for the right rules, following procedures, and respecting authority. These senators rely on their interpretation of the meaning of certain terms. For instance, they argue that the impeachment should still proceed since it is “sui generis”. The decision of the Supreme Court is clear that while the impeachment happens within a political environment, it cannot be isolated from the Constitution, which is the basis of every function of our government. The Supreme Court is only performing its role, which is being the final arbiter when it comes to the interpretation of law.
Some senators use the concept of government branches as being “co-equal”. In truth, they are co-equal in status, but not necessarily in power. The Supreme Court has the final say on constitutional questions. Our leaders are aware of that. But they cannot do away with their political leanings and bias. The Court itself says that it is not acquitting the Vice President nor does it intend to be political on the matter. While some senators truly believe that they have a sworn duty as senator-judges of the impeachment court, they also know and understand that they have a fundamental and unequivocal duty to observe the rule of law.
Senator Bam Aquino, who argues that the Senate must go on with the trial, can disagree with the decision but the Senate has to follow the decision. It cannot disregard the ruling. To do so is to violate the law because every Supreme Court ruling becomes part of jurisprudence. That seems basic! What some senators are actually saying is that the court simply committed judicial overreach, or meaning to say, that the court abused its power by infringing on the job of the Senate to try the case. This is a misunderstanding on the basic functions of the branches of the government. To obey the rule of law means respecting our democratic system.
Let me be philosophical about this concern. In the Upanishads, it is stated that the law is the king of kings, which means that it is higher than the king. The concept of the rule of law means that “no one is above the law” or that “all are equal before the law”. This was clearly stated in the Magna Carta, written in the 12th century. In fact, the concept, which is the spirit behind every constitutional democracy, is a reaction to the divine rights theory. For Plato, if the law is the master of the state, then people can expect “the blessings that the gods can shower on the people.” Cicero is clear, “we serve the law in order to be free”. Otherwise, we will be at the mercy of powerful men, who naturally want to serve their interests.
The rule of law, based on the above, is a principle meant to protect the rights of men and women from the whims of those who abuse their position. This means that the law is not just a tool but is preeminent. All must respect the decision of the Supreme Court. According to Professor Francis Jeus Ibañez: “The rule of law must be both respected and feared, for only through its uncompromising authority can justice prevail and truth emerge with clarity. Those who seek to tamper with its sanctity must reckon with inevitable accountability, as the time approaches when the Supreme Court—our ultimate arbiter—must act to restrain, if not eliminate, those who manipulate the legal order.”
