When academics and politics clash over an issue of great public interest like the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, public confusion arises.

It is bad enough that two separate but co-equal constitutional bodies are caught in a standoffish situation.

But when legal scholars come out with their own reckoning of the balance of power between or among the three main branches of government – the third being the Executive --  that is different from either of the two conflicting sides, people are made  to understand less and less about the delineation of powers and functions.

And a less informed citizenry makes for a weak, not a strong, republic.      

Consider the position of a Senator-Judge Francisco Pangilinan: The Senate, acting as impeachment court, has the sole authority over impeachment cases and not even the high court can intervene.

“My position is that only the Senate has the sole power to try and decide on impeachment cases,” Pangilinan said.  “Ultimately, all government authority emanates from the people, and the correction of any errors of the impeachment court must not be from subjudicial review but ultimately, from the people themselves,” he added.

Pangilinan’s statement came after the SC’s issuance of a temporary restraining order barring senator-judges from opening the foreign currency bank accounts allegedly owned by Corona.

He slammed the SC’s decision that binds the Senate’s hand and prevents senator-judges from doing their mandate as the impeachment court.

What happened, he pointed out, was the Senate rulings not followed.         “How can we work efficiently if one of our hands is tied up?” he said, adding that he doesn’t believe the SC has the right to intervene in what the Senate impeachment court is doing.

He said the SC has no authority to correct any errors on the judgment of the Senate as the impeachment court and that the sole authority rests on the people.

On the other hand, here’s what the paramount constitutionalist said: Neither the SC nor the Senate impeachment court is superior over the other; the Constitution is.

Fr. Joaquin Bernas  made this observation on Wednesday night amid debates on whether the proceedings of the impeachment court may be stopped by the SC in response to a petition from Corona.

“[S]aying that the Senate as impeachment court is superior to the Supreme Court [places] the two bodies on a collision course. When irresistible forces move … someone has got to give,” Bernas said in a keynote address during the oathtaking of new officers of the Philippine Constitutional Association led by its president, House Minority Floor Leader and Leyte Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez.  

“The contention that the Senate as impeachment court is not equal with the other departments but even superior to them in matters involving impeachment seems to assume that the Senate as impeachment court is different from the Senate as legislative body,” Bernas said.

“There is only one Senate which occasionally acts as impeachment court; in the same manner, there is only one Supreme Court which occasionally acts as Presidential Electoral Tribunal. The Senate, whether acting as impeachment court or legislative body, is the same Senate that is coequal and not superior to the other department.”

“[O]nly the Constitution is superior … Does the fact that the Constitution [identifies] the Senate as the sole judge of all impeachment cases make it superior to the Supreme Court in everything relating to impeachment? Perhaps we can find an answer to this by [studying] the jurisprudence on the relation of the Supreme Court to other agencies of the government,” he said.

“What all these mean is that the Supreme Court can come in when needed to determine the meaning of the law,” Bernas said.

“It means the superiority of the Constitution, and it just so happens that in the constitutional structure of our government, there is a separation of responsibilities. There is no superiority of one over the others. There is only superiority of the Constitution over all.”