DESPITE the failure of their earlier Plans A and B of their
judicial coup d’etat, the Gang of Seven in the Supreme Court is resorting to a
new tactic to oust Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno. Again, their move is outside the
1987 Constitution. It is essentially extraconstitutional. Words coming from the Executive Department and the Supreme
Court indicate that the Gang of Seven would
unleash Plan C, which is to give due course to a quo warranto petition, which Solicitor
General Jose Calida is set to file next week before the Supreme Court.
An
obscure and suspended lawyer earlier wrote Calida, asking him, as the government
chief lawyer, to file a quo warranto suit, questioning the Chief Justice’s authority
to occupy her current post and asking to remove her. Calida was reported to
have been happy to oblige. Despite his reputed poor grasp of the law, Calida was
intent to bring it to the Supreme Court, where his ally, the Gang of Seven waits
on the wings. A quo warranto refers to a legal challenge on the authority of a specific
person to hold an office.
The
obscure lawyer said the Chief Justice should be disqualified from her current
post because of her inability to submit her Statement of Assets and Liabilities
(SALNs) for two consecutive years as teacher at the University of the
Philippines College of Law. Prior to her stint at the Supreme Court, of which
she was named associate justice in 2010, she did not have any government post
except as law teacher at UP for 19 years.
The
Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which is constitutionally mandated to screen
nominees for vacancies in the Supreme Court, Sandiganbayan, and the Court of
Appeals, asked her to submit her SALNs as a law teacher way back in 2012. According
to the Sereno camp, a request to submit SALNs for two consecutive years (they
were covered by the prescriptive period) was given to Sereno, then an associate
justice on a Thursday, but the JBC required her to submit it on the following
Tuesday.
She
wrote the JBC, asking to exempt her from the requirement because of the limited
time to produce them. The JBC gave way to her request in a letter, but the
obscure lawyer was still pushing it as a ground for dismissal from her current office.
The JBC, nevertheless, included her as one of the five nominees on a short list
submitted to then President Benigno Aquino Jr. PNoy named her despite the
violent objections of her senior colleagues, who felt bypassed in the selection
process and were - and until now - bitter
The
current spate of developments indicate what could be regarded a bigger
conspiracy of the powers-that-be to kick the Chief Justice out of office. Details
show synchronized moves to oust her even if these moves violate the Constitution. They
have been applying a full court press to prevent a situation, where she would appear
in the Senate to give her side of the impeachment complaint.
Rep.
Reynaldo Umali, chair of the Umali impeachment committee, had practically railroaded
the public proceedings to establish probable cause of the impeachment complaint.
The committee changed overnight its rules to ensure a one-sided investigation. Despite the one-sided proceedings over the last three months or
more, the Umali impeachment committee has hardly established any impeachable
offense. Even the Chief Justice’s
detractors, who appeared before the Umali impeachment, could not say in
certainty any impeachable offense.
It
has been generally conceded that the Chief Justice would get an acquittal at the Senate, which would convene as the impeachment court the moment the House of representatives endorses its soon-to-submit articles of impeachment.
Incidentally, the 1987 Constitution lays down the grounds for impeachment of
impeachable public officials: culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal
of public trust, bribery, treason, other high crimes, and graft and corruption. Legal circles have acknowledged the fact the Chief Justice has made enemies because of her inexperience, but they have conceded there is hardly any impeachable offense.
Earlier,
the Gang of Seven resorted to their Plan A by pressuring the Chief Justice to resign, arguing her resignation “would save the institution.” This was a claim considered ridiculous because these justices never admitted they were also part of the problem. But when the
Chief Justice stood her ground, saying she preferred to explain her side before
the Senate, the Gang of Seven changed their tack and applied their Plan B,
where Associate Justice Samuel Martinez moved to declare as vacant the post of
chief justice. Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, in a surprising move to join the conspirators, seconded Martirez’s motion. They had a division of the house with the score 7-7, with one abstention, which was the Chief
Justice's.
Martirez’s
motion was so ridiculous to the point that netizens noticed their attitude to
oust the Chief Justice by hook or by crook, mostly crook. As if these conspiring justices were clean and men of integrity. It demonstrated a
gross ignorance of the very letters of the Constitution, which specifies how
the Chief Justice could be removed. I earlier comented that their Plan B looked
like the proceedings of a social club, where the board of directors
meet to oust the president, whom they do not like. It was totally devoid of any
basis.
When
the Gang of Seven lost in their two offensives, Plans A and B, they pressured
the Chief Justice to take an “indefinite leave,” hoping that such indefinite
leave would mean she would no longer return. But there’s no such thing as
indefinite leave even in the internal rules of the Supreme Court. Every leave
would have to be finite. It was the good thing the Chief Justice deftly parried
their bullying tactic by pointing out the internal rules to say the justices or SC
personnel could use what is termed “wellness leave,” which could mean sick
leave or vacation level, or a combination of both.
When
brought to the Supreme Court, the quo warranto petition could be the next issue or
flash point of controversy. It is because the Supreme Court has the power to
tackle and decide cases involving quo warranto issues. Given the obsession of
her colleagues to oust the Chief Justice again by hook or by crook, largely crook, we
could expect the same dynamics. They would handle and decide on it despite the
Constitution, which says that the Chief Justice could only be removed by
impeachment. Despite their oath of office, which says they would have to uphold
and defend the Constitution, not once, twice, or thrice, but at all times, these
justices would be the first to violate their oath of office.
So
what’s the whole point?
What
we see is the spectacle of a cabal of justices aided by certain lawmakers and people in
the Executive Department to destroy the Chief Justice. They would not give in
to her request for her to defend herself in a legitimate forum, which is the
Senate convening as an impeachment court. They would do everything to kick her
out of office, throwing anything on sight, including the proverbial kitchen
sink and toilet bowl. They are conspiring not against the Chief Justice per se,
but against the Filipino people to whom they have sworn to serve. They are in a
conspiracy to reestablish authoritarianism.
It
is a scorched earth conspiracy intended to destroy everything in the Chief
Justice, including her self-esteem. They want to make sure that even if the
Chief Justice wins against them in the end, she has none to return because everything has
turned against her. But they hardly know they won’t be in the Supreme Court for long. In His time, God would exact vengeance to the people who have entered into a pact with the devil. #StandWithCJ
No comments:
Post a Comment