FEAR NOT: Supreme Court justices need not worry about impeachment charges if indeed they hewed to the Constitution when they considered then President Joseph Estrada “permanently incapacitated” on Jan. 20, 2001, and went to EDSA to install his Vice President to replace him.

The magistrates of the highest court of the land need not fear impeachment — if they followed the basic law when, in a later decision, they declared alternatively that Mr. Estrada “constructively” resigned the presidency on Jan. 20, 2001.

But if indeed the justices erred, and erred grievously, is it not fair that there should be some acknowledgment and an earnest move to set things aright?

If despite an error, the high court sticks to its erroneous verdict, then we are in deep trouble.

* * *

NO CLOSURE: Unless the momentous constitutional questions being raised are confronted squarely and answered honestly, they will keep recurring to disturb the peace and tranquility of this republic.

But referring the same questions to the Supreme Court will in effect be asking the court to judge itself. With due respect, we are not sure the human beings sitting in judgment in the tribunal can be objective judges of themselves.

Fortunately, there is the impeachment process outside the judicial system. But impeachment is a political process where legal questions put before congressmen and, possibly later, senators are likely to be resolved in a highly partisan manner.

Even now, several senators and congressmen had spoken even before reading the impeachment complaint. That is a clear case of prejudgment, which could disqualify them when it is time for them to render judgment.

The tragedy is that if we relied solely on the processes in both the Supreme Court and the Congress, we the people may never know the correct answers to the questions.

With no definitive answers, there will be no closure and the wounds left by the forcible removal of Mr. Estrada will continue to fester.

* * *

TRANSIENT PRESIDENTS: All of us, including the members of the Supreme Court and the Congress, must be reminded that beyond the transient Estrada and Arroyo presidencies, there is the Republic of the Philippines.

Aside from the justices sitting in the Supreme Court and the congressmen and senators populating Congress, there are the Filipinos endlessly searching for truth and justice. Will our justices and lawmakers be able to rise above themselves?

In this discussion, we are more interested in finding the honest answers to the constitutional questions than in the political fate of Mr. Estrada and Mrs. Arroyo. The two personalities are not the core issues.

The questions raised have nothing to do with the character of Mr. Estrada or the qualifications of Mrs. Arroyo. All we want are straight answers to the questions. Let’s just answer them and get it over with.

* * *

FEEDBACK: We sense the pain and frustration among readers who have joined the discussion. While some Filipinos are not satisfied with the SC responses, they are hesitant to reopen the Estrada case for fear of sparking more conflicts.

Taking samples of feedback to Postscript, we quote a reader with username montycon writing from the US West Coast:

“I’m a FilAm. I’m of the belief that in this life there are doors that need not be opened.

“There is also the belief of millions of Filipinos that Erap does not possess honorable scruples. I’m one of those whose opinion, legal manueverings notwithstanding, is that Erap is not guiltless. There are also perhaps millions of Filipinos who believe that Erap is for the mahirap. These two contending parties could, because of legal opinions, clash head-on and create unimaginable havoc.

“I believe the followers of the two contending parties have accepted the present situation. Maybe that door has to be kept closed. Let history judge the Erap fiasco.”

* * *

POLITICAL MATURITY: Reader CBobadilla writing from the US eastern seaboard said in his email:

“You cannot entirely remove politics from judicial decisions because the judges are just humans like us. Remember the 2000 US presidential elections. Lawyers of both candidates petitioned the higher courts for rulings on recounts. The Florida Supreme Court, composed mostly of Democrats, approved the recount but the US Supreme Court, where Republicans are in the majority, overruled it.

“The interpretation of existing laws are subjective, but the main point I’m trying to emphasize is that politicians here in the US are politically mature enough to see the bigger picture. People here are always mindful of their legal rights, but when it comes to situations where the national interests can be potentially jeopardized by a constitutional crisis, politicians normally set aside their personal interests for the benefit of the country.”

* * *

ON SAGUISAG: Reader mdmanio using a hotmail address said:“What happened to lawyer Rene Saguisag? I used to admire Mr. Saguisag. I know that he is the defender of great people, the oppresed, the poor and those who have none. I find it very sickening to see him aligned with those people who he used to fight against injustices.”

Another reader, arnoldmy using a futurelogic address said: “I thank you for presenting clear and an unbiased write ups about the Supreme Court actions regarding Erap’s case and its repercussions. I also would like to commend Rene Saguisag for his stand, although I know that it may be an exercise in futility. But he speaks up and stands up for what is right. Let history decide.”

* * *

VIRULENT PARTISANS: We’ve noticed that most of the reactions from Filipinos abroad, particularly in the US, were more sober than those from the Philippines.

Many of the locals screaming from both sides of the political fence resorted to invectives, adding nothing constructive to the discussion. We can sense that the more virulent letter-writers are partisans.

Most readers abroad, however, dealt with the plunder charges against Mr. Estrada and not with the basic questions of whether or not his removal from office was done according to the Constitution.

The Estrada lawyers have stepped back from the plunder charges to rake up the basic question of whether or not he was legally removed from office. Their line is that since he is still legally the president, the Sandiganbayan cannot try him.

A sitting president can be criminally charged only in an impeachment process in Congress, not in any court.

* * *

MASS PROTESTS: We’ve asked Mr. Estrada about reports that some of his followers were mobilizing for mass action. He said he had heard about it himself, but that he had not been able to confirm them.

He gave us the impression that instead of resorting to street mayhem, he is concentrating on his bid to quash plunder charges again him before the Sandiganbayan and the impeachment complaint his lawyer has filed in the House of Representatives.

If some disgruntled groups are planning to stage street marches, he said, he has nothing to do with them.