This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-11-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| I therefore respectfully submit that there is now a commixture of political and judicial components in our reengineered concept of impeachment. It is for this reason and more that impeachment proceedings are classified as sui generis. To be sure, our impeachment proceedings are indigenous, a kind of its own. They have been shaped by our distinct political experience especially in the last fifty years. EDSA People Power I resulted in the radical rearrangement of the powers of government in the 1987 Constitution. Among others, the powers of the President were diminished. Substantive and procedural restrictions were placed in the President's most potent power - - - his power as Commander-in-Chief. Thus, he can suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law but only for a period not exceeding sixty days.[51] Within forty-eight hours from such suspension or proclamation, he is required to submit a report to Congress.[52] The sufficiency of the factual basis of the suspension of habeas corpus or the proclamation of martial law may be reviewed by the Supreme Court.[53] Similarly, the powers of the legislature were pruned down. [54] Its power of impeachment was reconfigured to prevent abuses in its exercise. Even while Article XI of the Constitution lodged the exercise of the power of impeachment solely with Congress, nonetheless it defined how the procedure shall be conducted from the first to the last step. Among the new features of the proceedings is Section 3 (5) which explicitly provides that "no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year." In contrast, the 1987 Constitution gave the Judiciary more powers. Among others, it expanded the reach and range of judicial power by defining it as including "x x x 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."[55] Likewise, it expanded the rule making power of the Court. It was given the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.[56] | |||||