Friday, December 27, 2013

High Court vs House of Representatives: Dangerous impasse leading to anarchy


A dangerous impassé

By Emil Jurado | Dec. 27, 2013 
•••
The impassé created by the House of Representatives ignoring the Supreme Court decision on the citizenship issue against Regina Ongsiako-Reyes, effectively ousting her from sitting as congresswoman of Marinduque, brings to fore the basic issue of what should be superior—the Supreme Court as the final arbiter on questions of law and constitutional issues, or the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal which rules on questions of electoral protests.
As a lawyer myself, I am concerned about this case since the impassé creates a constitutional crisis.
I have always believed that the Supreme Court, while flip-flopping on some issues, has the last say on justiciable issues brought before it. We may not agree with what the Supreme Court says, but when it hands down a decision, that’s effectively the rule of law, which must be obeyed.
Now comes the House of Representatives saying that the HRET has the exclusive jurisdiction in the Reyes and Velasco case since the former has taken her oath as Marinduque representative and has been recognized as such by the House leadership.
That may be so, but Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno held in her separate concurring opinion that the Comelec disqualification order has already become final, and hence, the HRET has no jurisdiction on the electoral case.
Back to the question on which is superior. This impassé sets a dangerous precedent. Imagine a co-equal and co-independent body like Congress defying the High Court.  The Judiciary has no teeth to enforce its decision, having no police, no army and no law-enforcement agencies.
I am concerned not only as lawyer believing in the majesty of the rule of law and due process, but as a Filipino in a country where the three branches of government cannot work at cross-purposes.
This could lead to anarchy.
•••
Now comes the move of the House, in its oversight function, to investigate the Judiciary Development Fund in the wake of calls of some congressmen to impeach and hit back at the justices for saying that the Priority Development Assistance Fund is unconstitutional.
My gulay, how else can you interpret this move by the House? If this is not blackmail—remember that the President’s own pork barrel through that new animal called Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) is under consideration by the High Court—then what is it?
Why are members of Congress hitting back like spoiled brats whose lollipops were taken away from them?
When Speaker Sonny Belmonte says, in an attempt to tone down calls for probe of the JDF, that the House will simply exercise its oversight function, there’s reason to believe that he is speaking with a forked tongue. We all know that the House is retaliating, comparing the JDF with congressional pork barrel.
My gulay, these lawmakers should know that the JDF is not a discretionary fund as the law defines how it will be spent: 80 percent for cost of living allowances, and not more than 20 percent for office equipment and facilities of the court.
Posted by at
Labels: , ,