BEFORE the headline topic, profound condolences over the third deadly school shooting in our history, after those in Tacloban in June and Zamboanga City in August: the Sept. 18 carnage in South Cotabato by a Grade 9 student, who shot himself after gunning down classmates at Banga National High School. Three died, including the suspect, while six were injured.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. ordered more stringent school security and a full investigation of the shooting, in which the suspect told classmates to go home at lunchtime before his 1:15 p.m. attack. Lawmakers reiterated concerns over firearms control, mental health and multisectoral measures to prevent violence.
Along with these sound action points to address youth violence, one must strongly urge greater and more widespread religious formation, which can effectively promote good behavior and prevent violence and lawlessness. Notably, global research finds that nations with high belief in eternal punishment in hell tend to have lower crime rates.
Also, at a Sept. 19 talk in Greenhills, titled “Happiness and Mental Health in the Light of Our Catholic Faith,” psychometrician and wellness coach Mikaela Noelle Gonzales cited a pandemic study of schoolteachers that indicated spirituality as helpful in coping with the strains of the contagion. What helps teachers handle troubles probably works for students, as well.
Senate numbers game
Turning to the headline topic, one must ask: How could any lawyer, let alone former Supreme Court chief justices, tell senators that they could deviate from the express constitutional requirement of at least “two-thirds of all members of the Senate” to convict, remove from office and perpetually bar from any government position an impeachable official like Vice President Sara Duterte because the Senate, acting as impeachment court, is not subservient to the high court?
Surely it is basic constitutional law that all state entities, including the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the national government, are subject to the Constitution and must abide by its provisions, which the Supreme Court alone is empowered to interpret with finality.
So, if and when the highest judicial body rules that the president, Congress or any other organ of state violates the fundamental law, it is not because the violator is subservient that it must heed the high court’s ruling.
Rather, constitutional supremacy is the operative principle. And part of that legal tenet is the express designation of the Supreme Court as the sole judge in constitutional disputes.
It was under this system that the Supreme Court ruled last year that the House of Representatives exceeded the limit of one impeachment proceeding against any official in a year, even if Congress argued that it was empowered to decide what constitutes a proceeding based on its rules.
The high court voided the 2025 impeachment of Vice President Duterte not because the legislature was under the judiciary, but because both must follow the Constitution, which only the Supreme Court may adjudicate. Indeed, such rulings even become part of the law of the land, imparting legislative power to a judicial body.
Similarly, the high court recently granted a petition requiring Congress to pass an anti-dynasty law. Again, that does not show that the Legislative branch is under the Judicial branch, but that both must follow the Constitution.
Plus, the Supreme Court, exercising its exclusive power to interpret the fundamental law, declared that lawmakers must comply with the requirement set by the Constitution four decades ago to enact a law barring political dynasties in elected posts.
The danger to democracy
In his Sept. 14 column, fellow columnist Rigoberto Tiglao rightly argued that the constitutional provision requiring two-thirds majority of all senators was needed to protect the electorate’s sovereign choice, as well as the independence of constitutional bodies, especially those empowered to protect the people’s rights and interests from powerful state bodies (https://tinyurl.com/vum82wxs).
The danger to democracy of letting Congress modify explicit voting provisions in the Constitution becomes even clearer with the provisions on martial law. Article VII, Section 18 provides that Congress by a vote of “at least a majority of all its Members” may revoke or extend martial law.
Well, what if dozens of legislators fearing arrest go into hiding upon the declaration of martial law, slashing the number of those attending sessions? Can Congress then decide it can extend martial law beyond the 60-day initial, period subject to its review by an affirmative vote less than the constitutional minimum because the number of lawmakers present at sessions has fallen?
Further on the crucial importance to democracy of ensuring judicial review of government bodies, especially the most powerful ones, the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to rule on any citizen’s petition questioning the factual basis for declaring martial law.
This is despite the indisputable reality that the Executive branch and its military, police and investigative agencies know more about security conditions and how best to respond to them than do ordinary citizens and even high court magistrates.
So, especially on the 54th anniversary of the declaration of martial law by President Marcos’ father on Sept. 21, 1972, let us please take extreme care in making changes in express voting provisions in the Constitution, or exempting any state entity from judicial review on the argument that they are empowered to act as they see fit and are not subservient to other bodies.
Beyond the Senate conviction vote debate, one has to also be more concerned about another move affecting numbers in the Senate impeachment court: the apparent targeting of opposition senators with corruption charges.
Two senators said to favor Duterte are now detained for no-bail plunder cases: Jinggoy Estrada and Rodante Marcoleta. A third, Loren Legarda, is abroad, perhaps avoiding graft charges against her and her son.
Two senators accused of corruption last year — Francis “Chiz” Escudero, removed as Senate president over illegal campaign donations by a contractor with government contracts; and Joel Villanueva, named along with Estrada as allegedly getting flood-control payoffs — are spared from jail. They are now in the administration camp.
Plainly, on the anniversary of martial law, we must fear for our democracy.
