By Atty. Ephraim Cortez
Judicial restraint.
The Supreme Court dismissed, on procedural grounds, the petitions challenging the Senate resolution on the voting threshold required for conviction in an impeachment case.
In dismissing the petitions, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners have no legal standing to question the Senate Resolution. The rule is that a person challenging a law or any governmental act must show that he suffered personal, direct, and substantial injury from the application of the law or the issuance of the official act. In the dismissed petitions, the petitioners did not personally suffer direct and substantial injury from the application of the voting threshold because they were not the subject of the impeachment proceedings to which the Senate resolution would apply. It is Sara Duterte who has legal standing to question it, since the threshold will be applied to her once the impeachment court renders its judgment.
The Supreme Court also ruled that the petitions were prematurely filed. The rule is that courts must resolve actual controversies involving conflicting legal rights, and judicial intervention is required to prevent a direct adverse effect, or any threatened/actual injury, to the person questioning the act. In this case, before it takes effect, the Senate resolution determining the voting threshold will not affect anyone, it will not cause injury to anybody. For this reason, the Supreme Court ruled that filing the petitions was premature.
The Supreme Court applied the policy of judicial restraint in dismissing the petitions on procedural grounds, and in not resolving the constitutional issues raised therein. Under this policy, Courts will not resolve constitutional issues raised in an action if these issues can be resolved through legal, procedural, or other non-constitutional grounds.
The Supreme may resolve the constitutional issues raised against the Senate resolution on voting threshold only once an actual controversy arises and a party with legal standing raises the constitutional issues for judicial determination.