MANILA, Philippines — As I write this article, the Supreme Court is reported to have issued a temporary restraining order against the implementation of the subpoenas issued by the Senate impeachment court requiring the Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) to bring to the court the dollar deposit accounts of Chief Justice Corona and for its branch manager to testify regarding these accounts. The TRO was issued on behalf of the PSBank which filed a petition before the SC.

I commend Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile (JPE) for his sober attitude towards the action of the SC. Let me quote JPE: “From here on, in deference to the SC, the interpreter of the Constitution and the guardian of basic rights guaranteed by the Bill fo Rights, this Chair would suggest and recommend to the impeachment court and the two sides of the case – the prosecution and the defense panel – to take heed and to discuss other issues other than foreign currency deposits, because of the presence of the TRO with the SC.” Earlier, some senator judges expressed disagreement with the High Court’s TRO, but the Senate as a body would have to decide which action to take. One senator said that we believe that we have the sole power to try and decide the case. How can we try this case if the SC ties our hands and renders some of our interlocatory orders void? Senator AP Cayetano said the TRO was not a “big blow” to the impeachment trial, but that the impeachment court would have to make a tough balancing act whether to question or not. Should the Senate question, it will in effect recognize the SC.

The SC in a vote of 8 to 5 issued a TRO which, until lifted, stopped the Senate sitting as an impeachment court from compelling the  PSBank to comply with the subpoenas. However, on the petition filed by the counsel of CJ Corona to halt the impeachment trial and the presentation of evidence against him, reportedly due to lack of due process, the SC merely directed the respondents Senate impeachment court and the House prosecution panel to file their comments within 10 days from receipt of the order.

When we were students taking political science, the simplest explanation of the powers and duties of the co-equal coordinate tripartite departments of our government,  namely, the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary, was that the Executive executes, implements the law, the Legislative makes the law, and the Judiciary interprets the law. The Supreme Court determines what the law is, what the meaning of the constitutional provisions is, and its decision is final.

The classic definition of the SC of  “due process of law” was done in its decision of the Ang Tibay case where, if memory serves, in layman’s language, it said that in order to comply with due process: 1) There must be a competent court or body; 2) There must be a valid complaint filed with the Court; 3) The defendant must be given the opportunity to answer the complaint; 4) There must be a hearing where the parties are accorded the opportunity to be heard; 5) After the hearing, the decision is made.

There seems to be some friction between some senator-judges and the SC on the interpretation of the constitutional powers granted to the impeachment court. While admittedly the Senate exercises the sole power of impeachment, does the power prevent the SC from exercising its constitutional power to interpret the law, due process, and the provisions of the Constitution? How about the SC’s power to intervene when there is abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction? The Congress has the sole power to pass (bills) laws. The Executive has the sole power to approve or veto the laws. And the SC has the power to declare some laws or provisions thereof to be unconstitutional, as well as Executive and Congressional acts. This is what is called the principle of checks and balances. I hope this article will help the public understand better what is happening in the impeachment proceedings. rene.espina@hotmail.com