It’s quite gratifying to see that, after so many years writing and speaking publicly against the dangers of the “Living Constitution” theory and allowing the Supreme Court to assume prerogatives not provided for in the Constitution, that people are slowly coming around to my points of view.
Of course, that it took their huge disagreement with the Supreme Court’s quo warranto ruling (of which this column agrees the Supreme Court ruled correctly and decisively) is beside the point.
One particular aspect is symptomatic of the passé view regarding the Supreme Court (i.e., that the members thereof are possessed of greater wisdom and are apolitical).
Thus, people look at the relatively simple qualifications laid in the Constitution for members of Congress: natural born citizen, at least 35 years of age on the day of the election (for Senators) or 25 (for members of the House), able to read and write, a registered voter, and resident of the Philippines for not less than 2 years (for Senate) or 1 year (for House) immediately preceding the day of the election.
The qualifications for president are just as simple.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court justice’s qualifications do seem more detailed: natural born citizen, at least 40 years but not more than 70, must be practicing law for at least 15 years, of proven competence, integrity, probity, independence, and on good behavior.
So some people look at the apparently more demanding requirements and believe it implies Supreme Court justices are more able than officials of the other two branches of government. Nothing could be further than the truth.
No.
To repeat: Supreme Court justices are not better than members of Congress or the President. To believe otherwise is to go against the philosophy of our Constitution.
The Executive, Congress, and the Supreme Court are three equal branches. That must always be remembered.
The reason for the differences in qualifications has to do with functions: members of Congress are better off varied, with differing backgrounds, age, educational attainment, and professional and personal experience. The reason is to better channel as much as possible the electorate, the People, so that the laws would more accurately reflect their needs of the time and within the foreseeable future. That is the reason for the short 3 or 6-year terms.
The Supreme Court has a far narrower function: decide cases and determine constitutionality of laws. That is the reason why justices are all lawyers and are not subject to shorter terms (justices serve until 70 years old, provided they remain on “good behavior”).
Unlike Congress, the Supreme Court is NOT mandated to engage in policy. The dispensing of wisdom and expertise in political, scientific, social, economic, security, etc., are not primarily asked of Supreme Court justices.
Because, if policy wisdom and expertise are indeed needed, then why limit membership to lawyers? There are many intelligent, experienced, and astute businessmen, economists, doctors, soldiers, etc.
That such are not needed of justices is precisely because the Supreme Court’s function is limited to the legal. Its warrant is narrow, albeit complicated and highly technical.
Congress’ function is complex in a different way: laws are supposed to cover a variety of experiences, interests, and consequences. That is why its members come from a variety of professions. The People are tasked every election to come up with the appropriate combination and lineup they believe suit their needs within that period.
Perhaps the ego and pomposity of many lawyers contributed to this misunderstanding. They grandiosely pile up powers and prestige on the Supreme Court that have no basis in the text, structure, and history of our Constitution.
Oftentimes, ideological machinations play a role as well (see The Living Constitution theory).
For example, some lawyers keep erroneously calling the Supreme Court the “Defender of the Constitution,” when our Constitution says no such thing.
The true and actual Defender of the Constitution — as well as being its true final interpreter — is the People.
Put another way, not only the Supreme Court but every Filipino, including members of Congress and the Executive, are duty bound to study and interpret correctly the Constitution.
The Congress should correctly take into account the Constitution when making laws and the President when executing them. Both commonsensically require interpretative functions.
The Supreme Court does have expressed interpretative mandate but only relating to its expressed powers under Article VIII, Sections 1 and 5, of the Constitution.
Of course, to grant Congress or the President powers and privileges not found in the Constitution (such as considering the latter the “Father of the Nation”) is also equally wrong.
We have a very good and profound constitutional system. Citizens certainly should take the time to study and appreciate it more.
Then hopefully we get to finally understand what it means to have a government of, by, and for the People.
Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.
jemygatdula@yahoo.com
www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
facebook.com/jemy.gatdula
Twitter@jemygatdula
