CONTRARY to misperceptions, Misfit Sara’s impeachment trial is far from over. Its process still goes on, although it hangs by a thread. At least three separate motions for reconsideration (MRs) have been filed for the High Court to review or possibly alter the much criticized July 25 decision on the question of constitutionality of the Articles of Impeachment, which the House of Representatives has submitted to the Senate on Feb5.
The High Court has no choice but to review its earlier decision, which has been heavily criticized by the legal community, particularly the former jurists, who have established a reputation for their contributions to Philippine jurisprudence. Among its critics was Adolf Azcuna, a retired High Court justice and a former member of the commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution. Azcuna is reputed as the author of the constitutional provisions on impeachment and accountability of public officials.
Other critics include Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio-Morales, two retired Supreme Court justices, who have established a reputation for the depth and magnitude of their ponencias; Artemio Panganiban, a retired chief justice; and Reynato Puno, another retired chief justice, who took with him the Philippine Constitution Association (Philiconsa), an organization of lawyers, whose specialization is in constitutional law. It does not often happen that the reputed retired magistrates criticize their colleagues on the Bench.
These are not all. Major sectors have come to criticize the High Court’s decision. Leaders in the business, educational, and religious sectors and civil society organizations have criticized the High Court. The criticisms were not limited to the Supreme Court. Even the Senate is heavily criticized for its decision to archive the impeachment trial of Misfit Sara.
It should be stressed that the Senate has not decided to dismiss the Articles. In brief, the charges against her are just suspended. She is not clear of the impeachable offenses imputed against her. The Senate, by a single motion from any senator, can always revive her case in case the Supreme Court comes out with a reversal of its earlier decision.
The pressures for the High Court to review its earlier decision and possibly overturn it in the soonest appear mounting. The flow of public opinion is definitely against the High Court. This happens because of what appears to be glaring factual errors in the decision. Since the decision is based on factual errors, wrong decisions came out.
Any effort by the High Court to ignore and sit merely on the MRs could have adverse effects on its reputation. It has to take the bull by its horns and decide on it once and for all. It is equally important to hold sessions for oral arguments to enable the High to hear various standpoints on the impeachment trial issue of Misfit Sara.
There were perceptions that given the limited, or short time, to prepare it, a pair, or trio, of junior lawyers in the employ of somebody else could have prepared the decision and the magistrates just signed it without reading its contents. To describe that they were taken for a ride is an understatement. There could be a bigger, more compelling reason for them to give their signatures to a patently dangerous opinion of the High Court.
Senior Associate Justice Mario Victor Leonen, who was identified as the ponente (author) of the July 25 decision of the Duterte v. House decision, definitely suffered a terrible loss of prestige for coming out with a controversial ponencia. It is not a farfetched idea that Leonen would himself be inhibited for writing a ponencia overturning his earlier ponencia.
Lawyers in the know claimed a per curiam decision, or collective decision, is more likely to emerge. When the time comes, the Supreme Court will speak as one to save whatever loss of prestige it has suffered as a result of the discredited and detested Leonen ponencia.
