Tuesday, 24 January 2012 11:20
In a democratic government, the executive, legislative and judicial branches are co-equal.
But on the legal aspect, the judiciary checks the other two branches. The legislative branches. The legislative branch passes laws but if a taxpayer questions its constitutionally before the Supreme Court and the highest ribunal rules that said particular law is unconstitutional then it becomes nul and void.
The judiciary also checks the executive branch whether its orders and issuances are within the constitution. The executive order issued by President Aquino creating the “Truth Commission” was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
On the other hand the executive and legislative branches can also check the judiciary whether it has not abused its powers under the constitution.
This is what we call checks and balances.
The executive branch implements or enforces orders of the court thru its law enforcement agencies.
But if national security of interest of the republic at stake the executive branch may not implement court orders.
The temporary order (TRO) issued by the supreme court allowing former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to leave the country for reason of health was not implemented by the Bureau of Immigration because of the hold departure order issued by the department of justice for reason that national interest is at stake because GMA is facing charge of plunder and electoral sabotage and she might not return to the country by taking political asylum in foreign countries. The executive branch can use its police power under the constitution as a last resort.
In this case with all due respect while the judicial branch appears very powerful when it comes to legal matters but it has no teeth or it is powerless if the executive branch refuses to enforce its orders when national security or interest of the Republic is at stake.
And because of several issues of biases, inconsistencies and corruption allegedly committed by the chief justice he was impeached by the lower house of congress and now being tried by the Impeachment Court of the Senate to oust him if convicted.
Favorable public opinion is on the side of the Executive and Legislative Branches while public perception has aggravated from bad to worse on the side of the respondent the chief justice as far as alleged ill-gotten wealth is concerned.
Constitutional crisis and anarchy can be avoided if supreme court justices are rational. To save the 3 branches from colliding it is honorable for the chief justice to resign. This is purely the personal opinion of the writer.
- 25/01/2012 12:26 - Pinoy kids now emboldened criminals
- 25/01/2012 12:25 - Jalosjos probable opponents for mayor reluctant to announce
- 25/01/2012 12:24 - Disobeying God to keep peace with other people is never wise
- 25/01/2012 12:23 - Tightwads and Spendthrifts
- 24/01/2012 11:21 - No taxpayers = No government
- 24/01/2012 11:20 - Defense fears Drilon?
- 24/01/2012 11:18 - He said: “My relationship has to have ____”
- 23/01/2012 14:11 - SC `supremacy’ over impeachment, settled law
- 23/01/2012 14:11 - Which side to take?
- 23/01/2012 14:10 - A crown of arrogant thorns