SEPARATION of powers was an important concept which significantly helped to determine the American Constitution in 1787. It specified the structure of governance as consisting of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches.
This was a reaction to the American perception that the concentration of power in one place led to unacceptable tyranny. Specifically, King George III unilaterally imposed taxes on a restive American populace which responded with the War of Independence 1776-1783.
Two hundred years after the drafting of the American Constitution, the Philippines, after the ousting of President Marcos, created our current Constitution. The 1987 Constitution, in many ways similar to the 1787 American Constitution, has stood the test of time, particularly in terms of the creation of the three co-equal branches of government.
This is now being challenged by the Judicial Branch’s acceptance of the Quo Warranto petition by Solicitor General Jose Calida. At the time of writing, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is offering a spirited defense to the petition which seeks to oust her.
To some, the problem arises because the Constitution says that the any Supreme Court Judge should hold his job “subject to good behavior” until reaches the age of 70. This means that if an appointed Chief Justice is younger than any of the existing SC judges, then those judges will have no chance of ever becoming the Chief Justice.
Is this important? It seems that according to at least Justices Carpio and Teresita de Castro, it is. Constitutionally, Sereno holds the Chief Justice post until 2030 when Carpio and de Castro have already compulsorily retired.
A comparison with the US Supreme Court is relevant. During the presidency of George W. Bush, the Chief Justice died and Bush appointed an outsider, John Roberts, then aged 50, to be Chief Justice. The position of a Supreme Court Judge in the US is a job for life. As far as I know, the SC has operated successfully under CJ Roberts. There are others, much older than Roberts, such as SC judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg, now a nonagenarian, who clearly enjoys her job of coming to conclusions which in her view uphold the US Constitution. Actuarially, it is unlikely that Ginsberg will ever be Chief Justice. I don’t suppose she cares.
***
When President Duterte congratulated Panay News on its 37th birthday recently, he spoke of the Philippines having a vibrant democracy. For me, a good operational definition of a democracy, apart from one person one vote, is a diffusion of decision-making power underpinned by an articulate robust national conversation.
The principle of co-equal branches of government seems to be challenged with a lack of generosity towards those of alternative views. Last week’s dirty finger response from Atty. Gadon to those who support Sereno is not articulate.
Even ignoring double jeopardy aspects, Sereno is in for a hard time. In all probability, there will be at least 98 members (one third of 292) of the House of Representatives who will vote for her impeachment. The Senate will then hear the case against Sereno.
The quo warranto case may then become irrelevant unless the SC finds against Sereno before the House does./PN
