With the holidays over, public attention is focused on the two sets of disqualification cases currently pending in the Supreme Court against Senator Grace Poe, an independent candidate for president in May 2016.
The first case emanates from a petition in the Senate Electoral Tribunal which sought the ouster of Poe from the Senate on the ground that she is not a natural-born citizen of the Philippines—a requirement under the Constitution. Voting 5-4, the SET dismissed the petition. The three SC justices in the SET, namely, Justices Antonio Carpio (SET chairman), Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, and Arturo Brion voted against Poe. One senator, Nancy Binay, voted with the justices. The senators composing the majority sided with their colleague, with Senator Cynthia Villar admitting that their ruling was anchored on political rather than legal considerations. As expected, the SET ruling was appealed to the SC.
Meanwhile, four separate disqualification cases were filed against Poe before the Commission on Elections. The petitions prayed that Poe be disqualified from running for president because she is not a natural-born citizen of the Philippines—a requirement likewise under the Constitution—and for failure of Poe to meet the 10-year residency requirement also imposed by the charter.
Last year, the first and second divisions of the Comelec disqualified Poe from the presidential race in separate decisions. After the Comelec en banc denied Poe’s motions for reconsideration, Poe filed two separate appeals in the SC. Oral arguments were set for Jan. 19, 2016.
Poe asked the SC to consolidate her appeals in the Comelec cases with the separate appeal in the SET case since her citizenship is an issue in both sets of cases. If the cases are consolidated, the SC will hear them together, and render one judgment for all of them.
In addition, Poe asked Justices Carpio, De Castro, and Brion to inhibit themselves from further involvement in the cases. According to Poe, since the three justices already ruled against her in the SET case, they should not be allowed to rule anew on appeal.
Unfortunately for Poe, the situation is not that simplistic.
The participation of Justices Carpio, De Castro, and Brion in the SET is mandated by the Constitution. Although they are members of the SET, they did not relinquish their status as justices of the SC during the pendency of the SET case.
Now that the ruling of the SET has been appealed to the SC, how will the other 11 justices of the SC (the ones who were not part of the SET) treat the pronouncements of Justices Carpio, De Castro, and Brion in the SET case? Can a justice of the SC review, much less modify or reverse, a decision of a fellow incumbent justice of the SC? That is like asking a justice of the Court of Appeals to interfere with the decision of another incumbent justice of the same court.
Moreover, there is the decision making process of the SC. There are instances when the vote taken in a case is not unanimous. While a justice of the SC may disagree with a fellow justice of the SC, any separate concurring or dissenting opinion of a justice is an integral part of the decision of the SC. The Constitution itself says so.
Taking into account the foregoing premises, it is suggested that the two sets of disqualification cases be consolidated by the SC, and that instead of inhibiting themselves from participating in the consolidated cases, Justices Carpio, De Castro, and Brion should adopt or retain their separate opinions in the SET case as their opinions, this time as justices of the SC deciding the consolidated cases. This way, the 11 other justices deciding the consolidated cases will not end up reluctantly reviewing the pronouncements of Justices Carpio, De Castro, and Brion in the SET case.
Actually, this arrangement is ideal for Poe because there will be no impediment, real or imaginary, to prevent the other 11 justices from arriving at conclusions different from the opinions of the three other justices.
In appeals in ordinary cases, a judge should not resolve an appeal taken from his own decision. Appeals in election-related cases, on the other hand, are somewhat different. Under the Constitution, a motion for reconsideration directed at a decision rendered by a division of the Comelec is actually an appeal to the Comelec en banc, and the Comelec commissioners who rendered the questioned judgment of the division actively participate in resolving the motion for reconsideration. In the end, the commissioners concerned end up reviewing their own decision. This liberal policy which the Constitution allows in appeals in election-related cases ought to apply to the two sets of disqualifications cases against Poe currently pending in the SC.
There is another option available.
Poe’s prayer for consolidation can be denied because the appeals involve different public offices—the presidency and the Senate. Also, the appeals emanate from different bodies—the Comelec and the SET. Likewise, Poe can lose in the Comelec cases on the ground of residency, which is not an issue in the SET case.
Inasmuch as Justices Carpio, De Castro, and Brion were not involved in the decisions of the Comelec, they do not need to inhibit themselves from resolving the appeals in the Comelec cases.
The proceedings in the SET case can be held in abeyance on the ground that the appeals in the Comelec cases raise a prejudicial question. In the end, whatever decision the SC renders in the Comelec cases as regards Poe’s citizenship can be invoked in resolving the appeal in the SET case.
At the end of the day, whether or not Poe meets the requirements of the Constitution is not just a campaign for votes in the SC. Since the SC is the defender of the Constitution, Poe should allow all its justices to sit in judgment in her disqualification cases.
