the defense of the CJ is a form of legal technique-a trap in order to drag the IC in a situation where there would be a 'question of law' , hence beyond the jurisdiction of the IC since the SC has exclusive jurisdiction on questions of law.
the IC must stir clear of this obstacle on the FCDA since it is actually irrelevant. the CJ himself said it: " wala pa akong nakitang jurisprudence regarding the alleged conflict". all it has to do is stick to its guns on the SALN law.
it is actually that simple. the CJ has the prerogative ex oficio with regard to the implementation of the SALN. it is his duty and responsibility to see to it that this is implemented in the judiciary branch. if he had questions regarding its implementation, he should have coordinated with the CSC but that was not to be. there is an existing administrative resolution to hide the SALN's of the justices from the general public.
being the highest administrative officer of his branch, he constituted the appeal board for all discrepancies in the SALN's implementation and regulation. he however, chose not to. this is pure and simple misdemeanor. the failure to perform a duty.
every person who files a SALN knows its requirements. one must declare all forms of financial interests.
the none observance or application of a law does not repeal it. neither does it mean that there is no law. once it is applied, you cannot question its validity.
you might say that there is no such thing as misdemeanor in the philippine constitution.
misdemeanor is the root word for impeachable offenses together with high crimes, originally provided for under the british parliamentary provision. it understandably circumscribes 'mal-administration' but does not include malfeasance, misfeasance, nor nonfeasance which are crimes specifically defined under the revised penal code.
from misdemeanor sprung what we term as 'betrayal of public trust' and 'culpable violation of the constitution' which are acts not in the category of 'high crimes'. here, there is some truth to the saying that "impeachable crimes are what the 'legislature' says they are", limited only by public policy.
and what is 'high crime'? they are those crimes which are punishable under our penal codes and special laws. the term 'high' being a derivative of the nature of the person's or officer's public office.
conclusion
i therefore hold that it is an error to use 'ejusdem generis' in determining the impeach-ability of an offense.
you only use ejusdem generis in singular classifications. for example, in 'high crimes', defining all crimes. or in 'misdemeanor' alone defining all forms of misdemeanors.
that is the reason why its usage in 'high crime and misdemeanors' becomes a conjuration of something 'fowl' and 'twisted' because they are two independent concepts.
