A judge should not be able to rule on the case, if they…
0 reactions
A judge should not be able to rule on the case, if they didn’t even participate or hear it. That’s all fair and square.
It would be the height of injustice if we are to give Senator-Judges the power to vote on this impeachment process. Imagine, even for the sake of argument that such a Senator-Judge has already decided on their vote, based on political alliances, such an interpretation would frustrate a constitutional intention.
The constitutional intention with regard to impeachment, is to offer an avenue for accountability, so that the sovereign people be given the truth and fairness that they so deserve.
This is why I join CJ Panganiban’s opinion. The law must not be interpreted in such a rigid manner, that it could frustrate its intention.
Applying a too textualist view, meaning that 16 senators should always vote to convict, in order to remove an impeached officer, frustrates the intention of accountability of the Constitution.
If we follow that premise, what if all of a sudden, 8 senators came down with a severe illness, and therefore are incapacitated from exercising their right to vote? Or what if all of a sudden we had 8 senators who are fugitives? So would that mean a single vote of acquittal would be enough to overturn 15 votes to convict?
Or if there were 9 senators incapacitated, if we follow that premise again, would it be like saying that it is already impossible to convict as less than two-thirds of the members of the Senate are voting?
It will not be wise to construe the Constitution, in such a way that it violates its very soul.
In order for a judge to have the power to decide a case, they should participate in it, and hear the witnesses of both sides. That is part of due process, that is just fair and square.
#ph #philippines #pinoy
It would be the height of injustice if we are to give Senator-Judges the power to vote on this impeachment process. Imagine, even for the sake of argument that such a Senator-Judge has already decided on their vote, based on political alliances, such an interpretation would frustrate a constitutional intention.
The constitutional intention with regard to impeachment, is to offer an avenue for accountability, so that the sovereign people be given the truth and fairness that they so deserve.
This is why I join CJ Panganiban’s opinion. The law must not be interpreted in such a rigid manner, that it could frustrate its intention.
Applying a too textualist view, meaning that 16 senators should always vote to convict, in order to remove an impeached officer, frustrates the intention of accountability of the Constitution.
If we follow that premise, what if all of a sudden, 8 senators came down with a severe illness, and therefore are incapacitated from exercising their right to vote? Or what if all of a sudden we had 8 senators who are fugitives? So would that mean a single vote of acquittal would be enough to overturn 15 votes to convict?
Or if there were 9 senators incapacitated, if we follow that premise again, would it be like saying that it is already impossible to convict as less than two-thirds of the members of the Senate are voting?
It will not be wise to construe the Constitution, in such a way that it violates its very soul.
In order for a judge to have the power to decide a case, they should participate in it, and hear the witnesses of both sides. That is part of due process, that is just fair and square.
#ph #philippines #pinoy
| 4,000 mlx | |
| 5 | |
| 0 |