Scraping the bottom.

(From Philippine Daily Inquirer)

Byline: Solita Collas-Monsod

The multitude of issues now being discussed and debated in connection with the attempt to impeach Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. can be classified into three major groupings.

Into the first category would go all issues related to the legality/constitutionality of the House impeachment move. Ranged on one side of this issue are the complainants in Congress and their endorsers. On the other side, you have the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Philippine Bar Association and the framers of the Constitution themselves.

A related issue is whether or not the Supreme Court has the authority to decide on the constitutional issues. But isn't that what it is mandated to do? And didn't the 1987 Constitution "untie" the hands of the Supreme Court with respect to "political questions," which inhibited the Court from questioning the declaration by Ferdinand Marcos of martial law? When Speaker Jose de Venecia talks about upholding the "political and territorial integrity" of the House, isn't that precisely a political question that the Supreme Court is now empowered to decide on?

The second set of issues has to do with the facts-the merits-of the impeachment case. The Commission on Audit says there are no material misstatements on the use of the Judiciary Development Fund, no violations. The complainants, using the COA figures, charge that there was "underpayment" of personnel allowances. Ergo, there is betrayal of public trust, there is graft and corruption.

Not so. The different conclusions are a result of wrong arithmetic on their part. To illustrate: The rule is that at least 80 percent of all collections for the JDF must go for personnel, and at most 20 percent for facilities and equipment. Suppose in Period I, P100 is collected, and P80 is distributed to personnel, and P20 is set aside for facilities, etc. Has the rule been followed? Yes, obviously.