Wazzup Pilipinas!?
MANILA, PHILIPPINES – A shadow of doubt has been cast over one of the Supreme Court's most monumental decisions, as a powerful constitutional watchdog issues a chilling warning. The Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) has raised a red flag, asserting that the Supreme Court's ruling on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte may be built on a dangerous foundation: a "famine of facts." This dramatic pronouncement threatens to unravel the decision and ignite a constitutional crisis of epic proportions.
In a searing statement, PHILCONSA delivered a scathing critique, not of the final verdict, but of the very process that led to it. The organization's "Observations" reveal a profound concern that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by acting as a "trier of facts" rather than a mere interpreter of the law. This is particularly alarming, they argue, because the cases were "directly filed in the Supreme Court," bypassing the meticulous fact-finding process of a trial court and the Court of Appeals.
This shortcut, according to PHILCONSA, created a perilous situation. The cases, involving "highly contentious facts," were never "fastidiously established" through the rigorous checks and balances of the lower courts. As a result, the highest court in the land was left grappling with a void—a “famine of facts necessary to make a decision invulnerable to constitutional assaults.”
The implications of this "famine" are staggering. A Supreme Court decision, the ultimate arbiter of justice, is meant to be a pillar of certainty. It should stand impervious to challenge, its authority derived from an unshakeable foundation of truth. However, PHILCONSA’s statement paints a picture of a decision that is fundamentally weak, susceptible to being torn down by the very constitutional principles it is meant to uphold.
This isn’t just a legalistic argument; it's a dramatic call to action. The very balance of power between the branches of government is at stake. PHILCONSA’s document underscores that the “separation of powers, redefine the limits of power of government or change the calculus of the balance of power.” When the Supreme Court's decisions rest on a shaky factual basis, it risks redefining these sacred lines, paving the way for what the statement calls a "tyrannical" outcome.
The group’s plea is direct and urgent: "We therefore urge the Supreme Court to review the salient facts it relied upon in its Decision to make sure the facts speak the truth, for only a Decision based on indubitable facts can stand time and its vicissitudes."
The Supreme Court now faces a monumental choice. It can either ignore the storm clouds of doubt gathering on the horizon, or it can heed PHILCONSA’s warning and re-examine the foundation of its decision. The future of constitutional governance in the Philippines hangs in the balance, a high-stakes drama where the truth itself is on trial. Will the Supreme Court find a way to end the “famine of facts,” or will this landmark decision crumble under the weight of its own flawed foundations?
*** A "famine of facts" refers to a situation where a court, particularly the Supreme Court, lacks sufficient factual evidence to make a well-reasoned decision, potentially leading to a constitutional crisis. This can occur when the court is limited in its ability to investigate or when presented with incomplete or unreliable information. Such a situation can undermine public trust in the judiciary and raise questions about the legitimacy of the decision-making process, especially in cases with significant constitutional implications.
Ross is known as the Pambansang Blogger ng Pilipinas - An Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Professional by profession and a Social Media Evangelist by heart.
.jpg)
Post a Comment