Imelda Cajipe-Endaya. Mga Anino Kahapo’y Tanaw ko pa Ngayon APIII/25. [“Yesterday’s Shadows are still on Today’s Horizon” (my rough translation)] Photoengraving, etching, and collagraphy. 35 x 28 cm . 1979. . Hiraya Gallery. Rightclicked and uploaded with express permission (thanks thanks!) from the www.hiraya.com
The Supreme Court last night proposed a Solomonic solution, a compromise, during oral arguments on Romy Neri’s petition for the issuance of a prohibitory injunction against the enforcement of the Senate arrest warrant (or to stop the warrant of arrest from being enforced).
According to news reports, the Supreme Court proposed the following compromise: Neri can be made to attend the Senate committee hearing but the following questions are deemed to have been responded to by the invoking of executive privilege by Neri and would not anymore be asked: “1.Did the President tell you to approve the project in spite of the bribery disclosure?” “2. Did the President tell you to prioritize the project?” “3.Did the President follow up her directive on the project?”
Second, when Neri attends the Senate hearing, depending on the query, he could still invoke executive privilege and if the Senate is not satisfied, they could file a supplement to their pending petition (or to another pending petition.)
The senators who were present asked for time to consult their peers on the proposed compromise and, as i understand it, close to midnight, the oral arguments were deferred.
Some of the senators (in particular Senator Biazon) had misgivings with the proposed compromise on the ground that it would set a precedent and effectively “shackle the ability of the Senate” to ferret out information.
Why is this compromise being proposed when : it is a certainty that on any and all questions arising from the offered “commissions” during the ZTE contract negotiations, on the overpricing, on Jun Lozada’s revelations, etc., Neri will invoke executive privilege, and on other questions he will say he doesn’t remember?
Since that is a certainty (it is a certainty because the petitioner thru counsel already stated at yesterday’s oral arguments that Neri’s communication with the President consisted of diplomatic and military secrets although the lawyer himself admitted he did not know the contents of the communication!), since it is a certainty that Neri would invoke it if he were allowed to do so by the Supreme Court, why not resolve the question now, here, on whether or not those questions (the first three on what the President did) and other matters related to it are matters of executive privilege? Why defer a “final resolution” on whether the subject matter is covered by executive privilege?
To my mind, the Supreme Court is proposing a compromise because it does not want the conflict between the Senate and the Malacañang to escalate. It wants to defer that.
In other words, it does not want the coercive powers of one branch of government to collide with or be enforced against a co-equal branch, the executive branch, which has a monopoly of armed force and which has publicly manifested it would resist the enforcement of the warrant of arrest on Romy Neri. (else, Romy Neri might find himself being “escorted” to Cavite, Calamba, Los Baños.)
In other words, maybe…the Supreme Court is trying to tell the parties they should behave like statesmen and diplomatically resolve their differences without asking the Supreme Court to use its own coercive powers.
If the Supreme Court were to use/ not use its own coercive powers and deny Romy Neri’s petition, paving the way for Romy Neri’s arrest to attend the Senate hearing, and then the Senate arrest order is disobeyed, and disobeyed effectively by the executive branch; and the Supreme Court is compelled to issue a contempt citation too but that too is disobeyed, there would be a final breakdown in the last “democratic institution” that people rely upon, the Supreme Court. The Macapagal-Arroyo government would have held the record for that: destroying all the institutions of checks and balances in government including the final institution that people resort to for redress of grievances.
Where do we turn to when that happens?
Malacañang if it defies the Supreme Court, would have destroyed the last vestige of civilized order in our society.
Maybe the Supreme Court is not deferring a final resolution, it is deferring a final destruction.
(the Senate can be creative when it is tossed back to them, i.e., trust the wisdom of the Chief Justice and bring back the subject matter to the halls of the Senate. i don’t know. Work it.)
