It is both symbolic and purposeful with mainstream media personalities, bloggers, a former defense secretary and ordinary taxpayers seeking to underline how the grossly mishandled negotiations and draft Bangsamoro Juridical Entity embodied acts of the chief executive, acts which constituent violation of her oath of office.
Given the numerical superiority of administration lawmakers, the fate of the impeachment case is sealed.
Still the challenge, nay, the imperative for minority congressmen is to cross party lines and endorse the intervention,
We all know the adage: “the only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
This is one such instance where no matter the odds, good men must do something.
Tags: MINDANAO CONFLICT, NEW GMA IMPEACHMENT CASE, RP-US relations. BJE. GRP-MILF MOA-AD
Amen.
The impeachment complaint may not prosper. BUT,we should let future generations remember the sins of the infamous PIDAL clan.Let their apos google their names one day and the results about their famous lola and lolo will certainly shock them!
Sayang, we did not have the interwebs during Apo Marcos’ time.
Imelda is fashionable again to the new generation and her other ‘exploits’ have been forgotten or consigned to ‘urban legends’. Even Juan Ponce Enrile’s hand during martial law has been forgotten.
Hopefully, with GMA, no one forgets.
“Hopefully, with GMA, no one forgets.”
Kapatid beyond “not forgetting,” the society which has been wronged must obtain justice. Justice which was denied them when lives were ravaged when hundreds of millions if not billions were lost in anomalies like the fertilizer fund scam and the deaths from the wrongly negotiated MoA-AD which led to the re-ignition of the Mindanao conflict, enforced disappearances, summary executions, and grinding poverty
I agree with what Manolo wrote in his blog. Impeachment are always a numbers game. True. However, lest we forget, impeachment complaints serve other purposes as well. And that is, they are reminders that there are still some people out there who don’t want grafters in government to fully escape justice. I mean, why are we always saying that attempts such as these are just useless when the very essence of filing such cases are meant to remind this government that many are out there watching your every move.
[...] intervention is downloadable here; coverage links include Inquirer.net Current, Filipino Voices, AWBHoldings, Alleba Politics, and The Daily [...]
by the way, check out this site http://ousttheimp.wordpress.com and suyakana.blogspot.com. very interesting and entertaining!
i don’t think anyone disagrees that this is like throwing a pebble against an incoming 747, the charges after all, are clear and deserve its time to be heard and replied to. One can not deny the fact that perhaps in a different set of circumstances it might prosper.
Though it isn’t news, this move by mlq3, and fellow bloggers and ordinary citizens may be a shot in the dark but I understand that it had to be put on record. beyond the questions it has raised, it is an indictment on politicians whether administration or opposition. it is an indictment that they are all only out for themselves.
nothing new, you might say. true.
if the next election is shaping up to be more of the same thing in different wrapping, in a deeper sense, perhaps each Filipino must ask, if this is the kind of people we have running our country, why do we keep on choosing the lesser evil? when are we going to decide to take it back?
i applaud my fellow bloggers for the strength of their conviction and the courage of their character.
[...] impeach raps and Bloggers comprise secod batch of complainants in new GMA raps. There’s also Impeachment and the MOA-AD in Filipino Voices. Also, Arroyo foes try for ‘online revolution’ (visit Oust the [...]
[...] impeach raps and Bloggers comprise secod batch of complainants in new GMA raps. There’s also Impeachment and the MOA-AD in Filipino Voices. Also, Arroyo foes try for ‘online revolution’ (visit Oust the [...]
True, apart from the tarnished Macapagal-Arroyo name, GMA should be brought to court. But that is unlikely at the moment unless the pigs in Congress miraculously support the complaint.
And since she is very religious, maybe if justice is not in this lifetime, her victims will send her off to Hades in the afterlife.
(Wait, wala nga pala Hades sa mga Katoliko…a basta, kung ano man equivalent, dun ang bagsak niya dahil imposible namang mapapasalangit ang kaluluwa ni GMA)
i find this subject ( of yet another futile attempt to impeach gma) too boneheaded to deserve comment. but the grounds for the complaint cry out for some measure of scrutiny and reality check.
the complaint/intervention charges the president with CULPABLE violation of the constitution in connection with the canceled MOA-AD. even without delving on the inherent executive power of the president to enter into such agreement, and the issue of justiciability on the ground that the matter was a “political question” beyond the pale of judicial inquiry, impeachment on that ground, i believe, cannot prosper for obvious lack of substance.
in proposing the “peace agreement”, the executive was exercising a power they interpreted to be in accord with the constitution. how in tarnation could that be culpable? the fact that the sc subsequently ruled that the MOA was not within the executive’s prerogative, did not make the executive’s action, a priori, a constitutional violation, much less a culpable one.
now, if the executive insisted to proceed with the MOA inspite of, and in defiance of the sc’s ruling, then that would, i believe, satisfy the requirement of culpability, as sufficient ground for impeachment.
“boneheaded” you say po Atty. Ben?
If you will tell us that you read both the decision and the concurring opinions, I’ll have to consult you then about what should be done with chief negotiator Garcia and company for “abusing” their discretion and committing the GRP to amending the Constitution to dismember the Republic. My second question is what kind of crime treason is.
Salamat po.
Oh by the way, the entire diplomatic corps was invited to Malaysia for the formal signing of the “done deal” hailed by GMA as a “breakthrough”.
Was she then unaware of the commitments her negotiators made in her behalf? The MoA-AD does not constitute acts of the president?
That’s right Bencard. Read the decisions first. It’s obvious you never did and are just spouting off as usual. In fact you just regurgitated something Abe Margallo spent much more thought and care developing. Shame on you.
more shame on you, djb. obviously, these things are not for you. i don’t have to engage in a pompous dissertation of the legal principles involved like you always do.
ding, no matter how you read and reread the decision, it won’t change the fact that the court merely ruled that the executive’s action was not allowable under the constitution. the use of the words “abuse of discretion” pertains to the propriety of the court’s taking jurisdiction on certiorari for alleged abuse of discretion, thereby activating the mechanism for judicial review of an executive decision. surely not a basis for impeachment on “culpable violation” ground.
btw, treason is out of the question, i think.
Really? You should be recruited by the Office of Solicitor General whose MR has just been denied with finality by the Supreme Court! Maybe you could have even won the case and enabled the government of the day to dismember the Republic!
In your absence they had to make do with FV’s missing commenter who gratuitously dubbed himself a High Priest.
Paging Marck, Jester, Rom, and DJB.
i don’t think you get it, ding. i’m sorry. the denial of the MR has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the president is impeachable for “culpable violation” of the constitution, as i already explained above.
“…the denial of the MR has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the president is impeachable for “culpable violation” of the constitution, as i already explained above.”
Yes, Atty. Ben, I get that be assured. Among those I have spoken to about this aspect is a former dean of the UP College of Law. What I request you to kindly help us understand is how the failed MoA-AD DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ACTS OF THE PRESIDENT.
bencard, where we differ i think is that the concept of things being a “political question” was made obsolete by former chief justice concepcion -who as you know, retired early in disgust over javella v. executive secretary- and who was a member of the concom, to prevent such a thing happening again. hence the introduction, in the present constitution, of the right of anyone to question any official’s actions for “grave abuse of discretion.”
i have been hearing the “no harm, no foul” argument from supporters of the president. that once the sc weighed in, and basically stopped the bje-moa anyway from being signed, much less implemented, nothing happened.
well, literally, tell that to the marines and our other soldiers who had to man the front lines with the resumption of tensions in mindanao, or the panicked populations of christian mindanao, or the tens of thousands who abandoned their homes in muslim mindanao.
or the fact that her own legal advisers had told her she couldn’t pursue such a thing, because it was unconstitutional, which led the president to putting it on the backburner but the moment those advisors left her government (nonong cruz et al.) she revived it.
our assertion is that some sort of accountability has to be demanded, and by all means it may be that stripped of the false shield of executive privilege, if called upon to make her case, the president could convince the house that she was justified. or the senate if the house impeached her anyway. but we will never know because she prefers silence to really accounting for anything to anyone.
“Abuse of discretion” is not culpable violation. Culpable means willful and knowing it was wrong. “Abuse of discretion” means that the person has the authority, only that it was exercised imprudently. You cannot impeach a person for the former though you can in the latter.
The MOA-AD is a political question if it seek to achieve peace in Mindanao. If the agreement runs against the provisions of the Constitution, the agreement may be purged of the offending provisons, but such would not invalidate the MOA itself. If it is political, only the executive has the right to determine its correctness and not the judiciary.
If by virtue of the SC declaration of the MOA-AD is invalid, the Muslim cessionist movement seizes the entire island of Mindanao, the SC has no army to command to repel the seizure so it can implement its “advisory opinion” that the MOA-AD is unconstitutional. This is an executive domain and the logic of a political question doctrine.
But we are missing the point here. The MOA-AD according to Solicitor Banadera was unsigned and it has been abandoned. The issue then is “moot” and it does not give the SC the right to discuss that “executive agreement” which is within the authority of the President to make and pontificate that it was unconstitutional. The pronouncement of the Court at best becomes an advisory, of which the SC is not allowed to make.
jcc,
The Supreme Court spent a good many pages in its Decision explaining why the issue of the MOA AD is not moot. You seem to ignore their salient point that it is part of the Mindanao peace process, capable of being repeated in another form, and therefore needful of judicial guidance on what is or is not permissible under the Constitution. The Court also explained its jurisdiction over the case, why it was ripe for adjudication, and along the way threw out every incompetent, illogical and down right silly argument of Ms. Devanadera.
Would you take time to at least read the decision and address the points you don’t agree with in some kind of fair and logical manner instead of just repeating the arguments that were clearly dealt with by the Court?
If we are going to take on a blog like SCORP, let’s at least do decent job of it. Some of us do bother to read the text involved in these discussions, but are often insulted when know-it-alls who have not, clearly don’t.
So JCC, please explain to us again — carefully– why the MOA-AD case was “moot and academic” — why the Supreme Court engaged in such a waste of time?
I’d really like to hear a cogent argument on this.
You can try to do it too, Bencard.
Manolo,
Worse than being blind are those who refuse to see.
it doesn’t take another lawyer to understand bencard and jcc. If the Supreme Court rejected the signing of the agreement, so be it.
True that the people has the right to information but how much information? The conflict in Mindanao has been there for so long. wow, i cannot believe many are stucked with just Gloria as the culprit as if we the people are not represented by region, city’s and municipalities. I am afraid that we are targeting 1 out of 100. Try presiding as a president and lead the remaining 99, How are you going to implement the country’s agenda if majority have their own individual agenda? The success and failure of a president lies on her team. If she fails , it is also because the team has failed her.
djb, manolo,
if the two of you are not lawyers, the explanation below would take time to digest.
The over-extension of the mootness doctrine involves private individuals and lesser government adjuncts that require future guidance from the omnipotent and omniscient court necessary. But it has never been applied to an act of co-equal branch of government by virtue of the principle of “separation of powers” and the “political issue” doctrine.
In Roe v. Wade the US Federal Supreme Court held that the Court has jurisdiction over the case even at the time Ms. Roe’s arguing her case, she was no longer pregnant because the State of Prosecutor of Texas can again prosecute her next time she becomes pregnant and would abort her fetus, or the Prosecutor could prosecutor her next-door neighbors who would seek abortion too. Hence, the Court make a pronouncement that the “issue has not been mooted” because the act is capable of repetition yet evading review.
Look closely at the objective of the US Federal Court is making future guidance for the State Prosecutor of Texas. Look closely too that the legislature of State of Texas has already passed the law on abortion and that the same is being implemented and prospective criminals were being charged in court. Contrast that with the MOA-AD which the SolGen said has not been signed and had already been abandoned by Malacanang. Look closely too that the pronouncement was directed at the State of Texas and not to U.S.Congress or the US President.
The accepted behavior is for the court to dismiss a case where it could on technical ground rather than bring itself in direct confrontation with its co-equal branch of the government. The SC should be respectful of the other political branch because it does not enjoy a monopoly of good conduct, and for added reason that it has no direct accountability to the people unlike the members of Congress and the Executive who have to submit to the people every four and six years respectively.
The SC could have enhanced its prestige by simply throwing out the case for mootness or for political question issue rather than pontificate on the executive branch. It has tried to venture on unfamiliar grounds to pander on the political temper of the times. It would like to be seen as a “knight in shining armor” at the expense of damaging the institution. In other words the SC becomes a political institution.
“If she fails , it is also because the team has failed her.”
Who picked the members of that team, may I ask? Who gives them orders, may I ask yet again.
If a team wins, the ‘commander’ takes credit. When the team loses the game, only the team is to blame?
jcc,
you are arguing from generalities. the burden lies with you to show that such generalities apply to this case, in particular, of what pertinence Roe v. Wade and the Texas State Prosecutor might have to this case. You really must address the Court’s specific argument that the MOA AD is part 3 of the Tripoli Agreement and is “capabale of repetition”.
djb,
as i said, it takes time to digest.
you cited the court pronouncement that the issue over the MOA-AD though mooted can still be entertained by the SC because the issue is capable of repetition. meaning, tomorrow, the president may change her mind and sign the MOA-AD.
if you go to the various decisions of the US Supreme Court where the principle of “capable of repetition” was made as a basis of reviewing a a “mooted” issue, such involves lesser adjuncts of government and not the U.S. Congress or the US President.
if you cannot still process the info.. please read my further explanation above that the SC should not be allowed to lecture to the Executive, may be you can get some sense why one equal branch, like the SC should avoid bringing itself in direct confrontation with the Executive.
“Who picked the members of that team, may I ask? Who gives them orders, may I ask yet again.”
but who is responsible to check and balance? this is the weakest link. is it not Congress?
“If a team wins, the ‘commander’ takes credit.
When the team loses the game, only the team is to blame?
or
if the team wins, the people will take credits. if the team loses, the people will suffer.
jcc, but the constitutional structure as it exists is precisely designed to essentially nullify the “political question” argument, is it not? this is what i asked bencard, it was the reason former chief justice concepcion proposed the wording of the present charter, and which introduces a point where our constitutional development deviates from the american federal constitutional experience. the supreme court under the present charter is basically required to be confrontational vis a vis the executive and legislative because of the experience of javellana v. executive secretary.
MLQ3,
No sir. The Philippine Jurisprudence is a copycat of the US Jurisprudence, but it deviates from some clear guidepost of the US jurisprudence only to cajole or to despise the Executive. The SC has never been confrontational with Marcos, but it seems that it likes to be confrontational with GMA.
The Political Question doctrine is one of the safeguards of Tripartite or Republican form of government where three branches of government working interdependently but works within their own sphere of authority.
Lecturing on the Executive is frowned upon because the two must treat the other with respect. Where a legal issue can be disposed of on technical ground, the SC must do so rather than put itself in the warpath with the Executive.
The Javellana is a model of a SC fawning with the Executive that it considers even the process of evaluating the validity of the ratification of the Marcos constitution a political issue rather than a “justiciable issue”.
jcc,
you obviously did not read the decision carefully enough to note that it was not a literal repetition they were referring to (”the President might just sign the MOA-AD) but that it is an integral part of the 3-part Peace Process setup under the Tripoli Agreement. AS such, that third step will be taken some time in the future. It is that third step which the MOA AD was a first attempt at taking. The issue is not moot and academic because the Court insists whatever the President does, it must obey the Constitution.
I suppose you will be able to process this information?
Jcc you aren’t addressing the question. The present constitution meant if not an outright confrontational then a more assertive supreme court vis a vis the other two branches. This is the fork in the road introduced by concepcion.
jcc,
the points you raise about mootness under u.s. jurisprudence are well taken. if the subject in controversy were clearly and indubitably the proper subject of Executive discretion, then yes, the Court’s normal inclination ought to be not to adjudicate on the wisdom or propriety of the policy or tack taken by the Executive.
However, as the Court says in the decision Cotabato v. GRP, it is the unremitting duty of the Court to strike down brazenly unconstitutional acts brought before it, acts that are ultra vires or beyond the legitimate powers of the subject respondents anyway. In this case the Court excoriated the President for usurping the prerogatives of the Congress and the People in the matter of proposing charter amendments and revisions.
It is not in other words some fine difference of opinion on some question of policy or issue of strategy, but rather the discovered fact of brazen violations of the Constitution and grave abuse of discretion.
By making its TRO permanent, the Court is really saying that the actions of the President that it had provisionally prevented purely on the basis of the urgent petitions and interventions of responsible and credible officials and citizens, it is now declaring to be a culpable violation of the constitution worthy of being prevented and anathematized by the highest court in the land, whether in the form of the MOA-AD or any other form containing the same toxic substances, such as the associative relationship between BJE and the GRP, and the various transgressions of the charter on territory and sovereignty.
mlq3,
where is that constitution provision that says that the court should be assertive of its right vis-a-vis the other two branches of the government?
djb,
the tripoli agreement is not on the table before the SC, the MOA-AD is. The MOA-AD was not signed and abandoned, therefore there is no issue before the Court. The issue is not even “mootness” but “ripeness”.
but you argue that the court can entertain jurisdiction because the act is capable of repetition, obviously you were raising the issue of “mootness” not “ripeness”. as i have explained, the doctrine of “capable of repetition” was applied by the US courts in regards to lesser adjuncts of the government but not against a co-equal branch of government because such branch requires the respect of the SC. the SC does not enjoy a monopoly of good conduct. even if the MOA-AD is frought with unconstitutionality, such may be purged with its offending provisions, but the MOA-AD itself is valid without the offending provsisions.
if you read Marbury v. Madison, Justice Marshall was not about to pontiticate on the Executive knowing the limitation of the Court in commanding Madision to respect the decision of the Court. He even entertained the idea that compelling Madison to issue the commission to Marbury might be rejected by Madison and would result to the embarassment of the Court.
Such is the respect of one branch of government should bestow on its co-equal branch.
The issue over the MOA-AD does not situate the SCORP to that same position Justice Marshall had
over the Marbury v. Madison case.
The SCORP position could very well result to a constitutional crisis which it could have easily avoided by throwing out the petition on technical grounds.
To the credit of GMA, she has shown sensitivity towards public opinion that she has abandoned the idea of MOA-AD being signed. Had she persisted in signing and implementing the MOA-AD, we would have a Court calling it unconstitional and yet unable to implement its decision because it has no army to command in order to repel the Muslim armed groups from exercising jurisdiction over their so-called “ancestral lands”.
The fear that subsequent Executive might again revive the MOA-AD is purely speculative. The Court cannot make its decision prospective that it has to issue a guideline now for the next President that the people may elect.
I have no problem with people having different take on this issue but would have some issues if they continue just mouthing the position of the SCORP without trying to analyze if such position has a far-reaching consequences.
MY simple question is: Why do we have to respect so much one branch of government over the two others when such branch is not even accountable to the people while the two others are and their members have to seek mandate from the people every four or six years?
If DJB and MLQ3 can answer the question, I too would not have so much problem the SCORP making adventures on unfamiliar territories and making pontifical and sanctimonious pronouncement to guide our future.
Sorry JCC but the decision addressed both mootness and ripeness issues, directly and explicity and separately. Quite adequately in my opinion. As I keep repeating, the MOA AD cannot be seen as some isolated phenomenon. It is part of the larger Mindanao Peace Process, and the decision directly discusses the relationship with the Tripoli Agreement. Yes this IS about the Tripoli Agreement because the MOA AD is just Part of that larger agreement. So unless you care to address the points actually raised by the Supreme Court you are just shadow boxing with various protagonists in tangentially relevant US cases without getting to the heart of the matter at hand. There is no usurpation of executive prerogatives. It is still in charge of making and keeping the peace. But it may not do so while selling the constitution down the river. The principles developed by the Court will be applicable long after GMA herself is gone. That is how non moot and non academic the issues are.
“MY simple question is: Why do we have to respect so much one branch of government over the two others when such branch is not even accountable to the people while the two others are and their members have to seek mandate from the people every four or six years?”
Because neither of the two others, executive and legislative, is tasked with the preservation of the rule of law. the executive implements what the legislative has enacted. but of these two and between the citizen and the state and various permutations, it is the supreme court that determines what conforms to the laws and what does not.
a mandate is required to lead, a mandate is required to deliberate, exercise oversight, pass laws, and most of all wield the power of the purse. but the mandate required of members of the supreme court is loyalty to and knowledge of the law. recall that in the ast it was the president who appointed, with the confirmation of congress, members of the supreme court, in which case the respect was as much due to the high court as to our laws or to appointees of the president -all done as part of our representative democracy. the innovation of the jbc has of course reduced the participation of those armed with a mandate to the president’s appointing the justice and the minority participation of some elected officials in the jbs. still in general terms, there was indirect participation by the people in the process.
the accountability of the justices is to the great institution of the law, of its long list of precedents and this is one reason the high court remains one of the most traditional and protocol minded institutions left, indeed i’d argue practically the only institution left with an institutional memory, with the possible exception of the armed forces. the impersonal nature of law itself, of how the law is not a question of electoral mandates but of certain principles and the interpretation of it to address new questions concerning old statutes, is why the supreme court is, indeed, supreme and why we have to respect it.
jcc, the constitutional provision is the one allowing the sc to rule on questions brought to it alleging grave abuse of discretion. you don’t have to read the journal of the constitutional commission to understand why it’s there and the differene it represents from our previous constitutions concerning the relationship between the high court and the other branches of government: “Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”
Concepcion is quoted here:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/nov2003/gr_160261_2003.html
As follows:
To ensure the potency of the power of judicial review to curb grave abuse of discretion by “any branch or instrumentalities of government,” the afore-quoted Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution engraves, for the first time into its history, into block letter law the so-called “expanded certiorari jurisdiction” of this Court, the nature of and rationale for which are mirrored in the following excerpt from the sponsorship speech of its proponent, former Chief Justice Constitutional Commissioner Roberto Concepcion:
x x x
The first section starts with a sentence copied from former Constitutions. It says:
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.
I suppose nobody can question it.
The next provision is new in our constitutional law. I will read it first and explain.
Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part or instrumentality of the government.
Fellow Members of this Commission, this is actually a product of our experience during martial law. As a matter of fact, it has some antecedents in the past, but the role of the judiciary during the deposed regime was marred considerably by the circumstance that in a number of cases against the government, which then had no legal defense at all, the solicitor general set up the defense of political questions and got away with it. As a consequence, certain principles concerning particularly the writ of habeas corpus, that is, the authority of courts to order the release of political detainees, and other matters related to the operation and effect of martial law failed because the government set up the defense of political question. And the Supreme Court said: “Well, since it is political, we have no authority to pass upon it.” The Committee on the Judiciary feels that this was not a proper solution of the questions involved. It did not merely request an encroachment upon the rights of the people, but it, in effect, encouraged further violations thereof during the martial law regime. x x x
http://arellanolaw.net/notesbankblog/?p=256
Ensuring the potency of the power of judicial review to curb grave abuse of discretion by “any branch or instrumentalities of government,” former Chief Justice Constitutional Commissioner Roberto Concepcion, in his sponsorship speech, even states that such power “…is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature.”
[...] Pacific News Center, and the highly incongruous report of the Standard Today. See the news story in Filipino Voices and also Technograph for the technological aspects of the whole [...]
[...] Pacific News Center, and the highly incongruous report of the Standard Today. See the news story in Filipino Voices and also Technograph for the technological aspects of the whole [...]
sorry for my delayed reaction to your post re the javellana decision penned by my professor, the late cj concepcion.
echoing jcc, a truly responsible sc would do anything within its power to avoid a path directly in a collision course against the other two co-equal branches, and thereby avoid a constitutional crisis that would shake the entire government from its very foundation. in fact, all three branches must each guard against any temptation to encroach upon each other’s constitutional prerogatives. nobody can construe the constitution in such a way as to undermine any of the three branches and thus destroy the republic. i don’t believe that cj concepcion in javellana advocated sc’s primacy over the executive to “practically” abrogate the doctrine of justiciability with respect to political questions. i think he was merely pointing out the constitutional intent to afford a litigant a day in court in cases involving claims of “grave abuse of discretion tantamount to want of jurisdiction”, as basis for judicial review of executive actions, including one implicating an alleged “political question”. for its part, the respondent branch has to “respect” the court’s ruling, again to obviate a constitutional crisis.
the matter calls for the highest degree of responsibility on either side. it cannot be a whimsical, arbitrary, arrogant, conceited exercise of naked power.
as jcc points out, the court cannot go beyond validating or invalidating a legislative or executive action. it has no power, nor physical ability to enforce its decision. as a matter of fact, only the executive has the military and police forces at it’s disposal.
having said all that, however, i maintain that a court’s finding of “grave abuse of discretion” in the exercise of it executive powers does not necessarily translate to a “culpable violation” of the law or the constitution to support an impeachment of the president.
note, the preceding post is addressed to mlq3@ 10:33am (11/15), and previous ones on same topic.
MLQ3,
on your November 15th, 2008 10:07 am
the SC as an institution is run by people with their own sets of values, party affiliations, corps and addiction to power. this institution is no different than the two other institutions. in some jurisdictions, it is the parliament that interprets the constitution and not the courts.
disabuse your mind about the SC as an oversight of the two other branches of government, the SC itelf needs its own oversight, the sovereign people, but apparently it is not accountable to the people.