WRONG MINDSET

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

SOMEBODY sent me a private message (PM) on Facebook social networking site, asking me this question: “So what’s wrong with those Supreme Court justices, who want to remove the Chief Justice? I said: “Everything is wrong.”

I sounded harsh or even sweeping with my response but I stand by it. The issue of the unconstitutionality or even immorality of removing her by quo warranto has been thoroughly discussed by a number of learned people, including pundits and legal luminaries.

But what has not been discussed is the kind of callous attitude of the supposed men and women in robes and of unparalleled legal erudition.

I have asked the same question to people, who are in the know. I have received tidbits of information from the chambers of the justices, who are regarded as the bitterest critics of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno.

Allow me to explain.

The justices know the Chief Justice’s removal by quo warranto would trigger tumultuous reactions from the Filipino people. But they argue these reactions would be confined to the local intelligentsia, particularly the legal circles and the academic community.

They fully understand that it could lead to bigger issues, which include a constitutional crisis, and even a crisis of confidence on the ability of the Supreme Court to render impartial decisions as the court of last resort on many judicial issues confronting the country.

But here lies the difference.

Under normal circumstances, those learned men or women of Padre Faura would recoil and even reexamine their collective conscience amid the blistering criticisms associated with something or anything inherently unconstitutional and ergo illegal and immoral.

But forget those reexamination of conscience. The Chief Justice’s enemies strongly believe that her removal by quo warranto is the best they could do. They know she knows so much to the point that she should be deprived a forum to explain her side of the controversy.

Ergo, forget the impeachment process, where she could speak freely in the Senate as an impeachment court. They should avoid the situation where, the Chief Justice would spill the beans on them and reveal to the Filipino people their most kept secrets, including their own corruption and acts of commission and omission at the High Court.

While they fully know it could trigger nothing but tumult because of its inherent flaw, those justices even believe with inordinate cockiness that they could meet the forthcoming deluge of noises and save the situation.

They believe they are quite savvy to meet the coming stormy situation since they have the support of the sick old man of the South, who has vowed to remove the Chief Justice by hook and largely by crook (as represented by the crooks in the High Court), and his army of jukebox commentators in traditional media and trolls in social media.

They believe they could fix the mess that confronts the High Court. In short, they have the mindset that everything could be saved, fixed, and recovered, including their questionable personal honor to dispense justice.

They do not believe the scenario of a slippery slope, where an act that touches the nerve of history could cascade into something drastic, dramatic, and debilitating.

They do not adhere to the view that a patently unconstitutional act would be a game changer.

In brief, they have taken the condescending view that the Filipino people would have a hard time understanding an issue so technical from their limited standpoint. Ergo, they could do anything with impunity.

Obviously, those magistrates hardly know that history has not been kind to leaders, who had shown intransigence to follow the flow of history, or what historian Barbara Tuchmann describes as “woodenheadness” in her monumental book “March of Folly.”

The magistrates hardly understand that removing her by an inherently unconstitutional and flawed way is contrary to their self- interest. They do not foresee that they would someday pay for their misdeeds and get a dosage of their own medicine.

They do not know that their own shortsightedness, bigotry, and folly could lead to their downfall and that their own downfall would be most damning mainly to avoid any repetition in the future.

AFTER CJ SERENO’S REMOVAL WHAT?

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

(I was invited yesterday to speak a small group of public servants, who fashioned themselves as "civil servants for democracy." I posted my paper, which I presented. But it was the open forum which was most vigorous and engaging. So, I've decided to post my response to what I considered the main question.)

SOMEBODY in the audience raised a question that perked up the open forum that followed my presentation yesterday before some 30 public servants in a restaurant in Quezon City. A fiftyish civil servant mused: “What would happen if Chief Justice (Ma. Lourdes) Sereno is removed on the basis of the quo warranto petition?”

“That’s an excellent question,” I said, raising scenarios if ever her colleagues remove her from her post. I mentioned two things: first, it could trigger a constitutional crisis; and second, her removal would make her colleagues a bunch of criminals.

But an ensuing constitutional crisis is an understatement, I said. “What could be more problematic are the moral and political dimensions. We could have a moral crisis that could later translate into a political crisis,” I said.

“Imagine a Supreme Court, where the sitting justices have openly defied and violated the very letter and spirit of the Constitution. They are criminals,” I said. “There is no other way to describe them but as criminals.”

Of course, I had to explain that the quo warranto is a legal monstrosity, which the powers-that-be have to resort because they do not want the Chief Justice to appear in the Senate as an impeachment court.

The 1987 Constitution is clear and specific. The Chief Justice could only be removed from office by impeachment. There is only a single process to remove the sitting Chief Justice and that is impeachment.

By resorting to quo warranto, the Supreme Court has become a social club, where the sitting president could be removed by a mere vote of confidence by its board of director or trustees. Definitely, the Supreme Court is more than a social club. It is the final arbiter of questions about law.

Removing the Chief Justice by quo warranto is an impeachable offense, making those justices liable for culpable violation of the Constitution, which is one of the six grounds for impeachment under the Constitution.

Definitely, the justices are acting in complete exercise of their free will. They are not under duress. Deep in their hearts and mind, they know that what there are doing is patently unconstitutional and, ergo, criminal.

I would surmise they know they have to face the music – the consequences of their illegal act, if ever they would do it. Not now, but sometime in the future. Even when they are dead, the official records would have to be revised and set straight. They would end up the villains in history.

That will be the time when they will be judged by history as conspirators of a grand larceny to rape brutally both the Philippine judiciary and democracy.

I told the audience that nothing could stop the Chief Justice from going around the country to explain her side. It is her right to speak her mind. The deprivation of a forum for her to air her side is the biggest justification for her to go every nook and cranny of the country.

The conspiracy to provide our people with a single version of the story is most appalling. The Chief Justice has to take the bull by its horn by speaking before every forum of people from various walks of life.

The constitutional crisis could end up with severe institutional damage for the Judiciary. It is not difficult to fathom how our people would view the Judiciary.

Gone are the days when our people regarded (notice my use of the past tense) them as demigods, who make the final say on many questions of law to give birth to judicial doctrines that become part of the laws of the land.

Behind its façade of deep and unparalleled erudition of the law is a rotten Supreme Court composed of judicial scalawags in robes, or criminals in the crudest sense of the word. They stink of corruption and highhandedness.

A moral crisis is to be expected as an aftermath. Because of its corruption, where else the people would go? Does the Supreme Court deserve to remain as the court of last resort, as the final arbiter of good and evil.

If we have a constitutional and moral crisis, will a brewing political crisis be far behind? Definitely, it will.

A weak, dysfunctional Supreme Court is not in a position to come out with judicial doctrines and opinions that would be binding for the country.

What it will issue are decisions that will favor the powers-that-be, or the emerging authoritarianism in the country. It would cease to function as bedrock of democracy, but a tool of the authoritarian regime.

Hence, we have a political crisis.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

WHAT TO EXPECT FROM CJ. Tomorrow, I would be a pinch hitter to a speaker in a round table discussions of public servants. A small group of about 15 or 20. The scheduled speaker is sick; I would replace him. It's not a problem to be a last minute speaker. I've learned it two hours ago. but I have something to say. That's why I have accepted it. As my usual style, I have prepared a paper, which I would give to the participants. But I have prepared a powerpoint presentation, where we could discuss several points in the ensuing open forum.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION
Paper read to Round Table Discussions of Public Servants
Quezon City, April 18, 2018

THANK you for inviting me to speak this morning.

Allow me to go straight to the point, which is about the Chief Justice and the Court of Public Opinion. As a journalist, I find comfort discussing the Court of Public Opinion, which is totally different from the Court of Law.

I must start by saying that Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno has no choice but to bring the issue to the people, or what many people refer as the Court of Public Opinion.

Since the court of law, of which the Supreme Court is among its dispensers of justice, has been largely dysfunctional because of the stubborn refusal of several justices to acknowledge the unconstitutional nature of the quo warranto petition earlier filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida, the Chief Justice has to bring the issue of her removal from office straight to the Filipino people.

She has been on a speaking binge, going to every nook and cranny, talking about the conspiracy of the magistrates to bring her down and kick her out of office without resorting to the constitutional process.

She has been bringing her issue to students, fellow workers in government, workers of the Judiciary, and even the simplest of our people. Nothing seems to stop her. Even her Supreme Court colleague, Samuel Martirez openly complained – with the usual sarcasm but without any sense of intellectual sophistication – made reference to her new tack during the April 10 oral arguments in Baguio City.

Her enemies in the Supreme Court seem to be overly concerned on what the Chief Justice has to say publicly and outside the High Court. But who would stop her? How could they stop her?

The Court of Public Opinion

The Court of Public Opinion is quite different from the Court of Law. The Court of Law is known for its structured organization. As part of its traditions, it has a judge and two opposing sides: the prosecution and the defense.

It has a structured process, which the judge and two adversarial parties adhere without letup and failure. After the elaborate hearing process, where the prosecution presents its evidence, after which the defense rebuts, the judge is empowered to render a fair and impartial decision, which the two parties are enjoined to follow.

It goes without saying the tripartite Court Of Law follows the letter of the law. Their adherence to the majesty of the law provides the raison d’etre for the Court’s existence, which is to settle disputes in society. Without the law, there is no court and everybody follows the rules of the jungle. Anarchy is the likely end result.

The Supreme Court, as court of last resort, is no different from any other court. The magistrates, who sit as final arbiters of legal issues, are equally mandated to exercise impartiality, fairness and probity to answer legal questions brought to tis attention and final verdict.

Its magistrates are not demigods, who whimsically legislate, but ordinary mortals, who, because of their perceived erudition, are entitled to render the final interpretation of legal questions on the basis of their interpretation of the law.

As pious arbiters of what is right or wrong, of what is good or bad for society, of what is just and fair and unjust and unfair, magistrates of the country’s highest court, are essentially exemplars of virtues.

On the contrary, the Court of Public Opinion, which relies on mass media, is notorious for its savage, unhindered, and unfettered flow of information that bespeaks of an unstructured and free-for-all processes.

Mass media, whether traditional or nontraditional (particularly social media) and its processes hardly follow any rules on the traffic of information. News and other pieces of information come and go. There are no prosecution and defense.

A great deal depends on how media practitioners – editors, reporters, writers, opinion leaders, commentators, netizens, and citizen journalists – handle the issue. A great deal depends on how opinion, or the beyond the news genre is shaped.

Citizens could only rely on mass media’s traditions, which speak highly of the tenets of truth, balance and fairness. In most instances, mass media operates of the principle of caveat emptor, although mass media is always quick to correct itself.

This shaky situation is being compounded by the proliferation of fake news, although this is being addressed by both traditional and nontraditional media.

Public opinion is said to have been crystallized and generated the moment the varying voices – personal and collective, institutional and community – have flowed in a single stream. The formation of opinion depends largely on how mass media dishes out thoese pieces of information to the public.

It usually takes time for the Court of Law to decide and rule. Everything depends on how its processes unfold – on how the prosecution presents pieces of evidence and how the defense debunks the evidence.

This is the exact opposite of the Court of Public Opinion. Since its processes could be spontaneous and unwieldy, the Court of Public Opinion could be brutal when it comes to decision-making.

Ordinary citizens, not judges, decide in the Court of Public Opinion. When consumers of information that passes through mass media outlets decide on the issue before the Bar of Public Opinion, they do it with certain finality and low level of kindness.

When specific people or parties are perceived or adjudged as guilty before the Court of Public Opinion, they suffer from public opprobrium that ranges from strong public disapproval to social ostracism. Ostracized public figures are forced to resign their public or private offices. They even die early.

The Filipino people saw these social processes on the Chief Justice, but she has been fairly undeterred. Her enemies have conspired to use every conceivable means – or the two courts – to bring her down to her knees.

One-sided public hearings

The public hearings of the Umali impeachment committee had been so one-sided with the Chief Justice’s enemies speaking at length without the committee giving her a chance to defend herself under generally established and accepted rules.

The six justices and several others spoke at length in trying to iron out impeachable offenses. But they have perceived as largely unsuccessful as they could not pin her down on specific impeachable offense.

When after 16 or 17 public hearings the Umali impeachment could not raise issues sufficient to impeach and remove the Chief Justice. What it has raised is a weak case against her. So they have upped the ante and its leaders began to conspire with the magistrates to pressure her to resign.

When the Chief Justice has shown no interest to resign, but has opted instead to fight it out in the Senate as an impeachment court, the magistrates have conspired again to use a new but totally alien judicial animal to impeachable officials.

On the basis of Calida’s quo warranto petition, the magistrates have conspired – or are conspiring - to remove her, although the only allowable way under the 1987 Constitution is the impeachment.

In brief, magistrates, who are deeply angered by the Chief Justice’s ascension to become the Chief Justice in 2012 and hence are harboring deep professional jealousy, want to remove the Chief Justice outside of what the Constitution has laid down.

In brief, they are treating the Supreme Court no different from any other social club, where it leaders are removed by vote of no confidence of its board of rectors or trustees.

So what could we expect when the Chief Justice goes around and speaking before throngs of humanity to bring her issues against her enemies and even to the institution she represents?

Although the Chief Justice is deeply schooled in law, particularly its letter and process, she has not found it difficult to engage in the Court of Public Opinion. This is not exactly her terrain or domain, but she is doing well.

Her experience as a college teacher and her intellectual brilliance, nurtured by long years of experience as private law practitioner, have enabled her to explain her side without carrying any chip on her shoulder before our people.

This is in contrast to the other magistrates, who look stiff and intimidating. A lady magistrate is a face of bitterness. I must confess that the first time I saw the square jawed magistrate on TV, I was appalled by her high pitched voice and the sight of her angry carotid artery on her neck.

We could expect the Chief Justice to bring her side to the public. It is always axiomatic that every narrative has many sides. Hence, it is axiomatic that the Chief Justice would bring her own narrative to their narratives.

She could argue from several standpoints – as a jurist, as a public servant, or as a patriot. In her April 9 speech at the Araw ng Kagitingan, the Chief Justice has argued strongly for the rule of law and the ultimate necessity to adhere collectively to the 1987 Constitution.

The Chief Justice has come out of her cocoon to become the champion of democracy, a patriot who opposes the counterrevolution to subvert our nation and implant a new authoritarian regime. She has emerged as the opponent of authoritarianism.

Of course, it goes without saying that the Chief Justice would bring out her beef against her fellow magistrates, particularly how they have prostituted their posts. This is an area they have been watching keenly.

This is the reason the magistrates do not want the Chief Justice to appear in the Senate as an impeachment court. They do not want the attention of the entire nation to be on the shenanigans they have committed and which they know she has been holding against them.

Many things would happen in the coming days, weeks, and months. This is not over. The Chief Justice is expected to fight to the end.

THE EJK ISSUE IN POST-DUTERTE ERA

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

HE may not understand it now, but President Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody antidrug war that has resulted in over 20,000 extrajudicial killings (EJKs) in the first 20 months of his term would take its toll not only on him, but to his family - kids, grandkids, and descendants.

Even long after his death, his children and descendants would be hounded and condescendingly referred as "scions of the butcher of his own people." The ignominy is difficult to ignore.

Two developments are expected just in case the sick old man of the South is out of power and a new democratic government assumes power.

We could expect the creation of a commission that would conduct thorough investigations into the spate of EJKs that happened since he has taken power.

The envisioned commission is expected to exact justice for the EJK victims and propose public policy initiatives to prevent recurrence of unmitigated EJks in the future.

The commission would certainly attempt to go deeper into the EJK issues particularly the identification of the people who gave the orders, and implemented those illegal orders.

This issue would go possibly for years. There would not be an easy closure on this issue. This is not vindictiveness. This is justice.

When the sick old man and his minions gave orders to take the lives of certain people outside the ambit of the rule of law and without the benefit of due process, we could expect retribution in the form of justice.

The creation of the proposed commission is not without prejudice to the ongoing preliminary examination of the suits which a private lawyer and two Magdalo lawmakers have filed against the sick old and several others including former PNP chief Ronald dela Rosa and Sen. Richard Gordon, before the International Criminal Court.

Sen. Sonny Trillanes, Rep. Gary Alejano, and lawyer Jude Sabio have raised crimes against humanity against them.

Aside from the issue of reputation, the sick old man and his family would be hounded by indemnification issues. They would be hounded by suits of families of the EJK victims, who would seek indemnity for the murders of their kin.

They would likely ask the courts to allocate the estate of the sick old man to indemnify the families of EJK victims. Hence, whatever they have earned or collected would only go as indemnity for families of victims of his bloody antidrug war.

The indemnification of the families of EJK victims would be a ticklish issue because it is likely to become an open ended question. There would be no easy settlement with the families.

There would be no easy formula for the computation of the exact amount of indemnity. There would be no easy way to satisfy the families of EJK victims.

At the moment, the families are unorganized and quiet. But at one point, or even during the tenure of office of the sick old man, they would just rise to exact justice and ask for what rightfully they deserve.

SERENO’S TRAVAILS AT SC

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

IT has been told countless times in legal circles how then President Benigno Aquino III took private law practitioner Ma. Lourdes Sereno, who was then 50 years old, to an interview in Malacanang sometime in early August, 2010.

PNoy, who hardly personally knew Sereno, raised a question that struck deep into the magistrate’s probing mind: “Are you prepared to be in the minority for the next 20 years?” When she answered in the affirmative, Sereno became the first PNoy’s appointee in the Supreme Court. She took her oath of office on August 13, 2010.

She holds the distinction of coming from private practice unlike most current and previous magistrates, who took decades to build careers in the judiciary and academe. Her appointment is the Supreme Court’s gain and the private sector’s loss.

Sereno did not have exact ideas what awaited her at the Supreme Court, but got the surprise of her life from the first day she stepped on its august hall. Magistrates appointed by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who ruled for nine years, have made her life miserable at the court of last resort.

Renato Corona, A GMA appointee, who was then removed as chief justice in 2012 for not including over P200 million in his SALN, assigned her as her office an unfixed room along the hall way. It made working conditions unbearable to any worker, who does plenty of mental works. It was noisy and uncomfortable.

Because she came straight from private sector and, ergo, did not share the same grind as those jurists who came from the judiciary and the academe, she was immediately given cold shoulders and treated miserably by her colleagues. This continues until now

Since her first day in office, Sereno has to endure with remarkable stoicism the snide remarks and braggadocio of Justice Teresita de Castro, who keeps on behaving as if she is the goddess and fountain of judicial wisdom. She had to endure the sarcasm of older colleagues, including nasty insults and even sexual innuendos and overtures.

Their overbearing behavior has not distracted the lady magistrate, whose priority has been to do her job mainly to interpret the law, dispense justice, and lessen the workload of an overworked Supreme Court. In her view, she does not have a problem; her colleagues are the ones who have problems.

Little by little, the lady magistrate saw the realities in the High Court.

The men and women in majestic robes, who give the final interpretation of the letters of the law and who are supposed to dispense justice, whose words become part of the laws of the land, are the most oppressive, hypocritical, and despicable.

She saw that the men and women, whom the people take as demigods who live in utter quiet and sedentary seclusion so that they could fathom and issue the final wisdom in the interpretation of the law, are a bunch of hypocrites, who have exaggerated estimate of themselves.

These magistrates have plenty of personal quirks and disdainful antics to project the trappings of power in their hands.

She saw how they do those things without moral compunction. For instance, some magistrates could not open their cars; they let somebody else do it for them. Others cavort with fixers in the court. Magistrates, who keep concubines, speak with the mistaken notion they are the ones empower to define morality.

She has come to dislike them, but she knows she has to live with them.

As earlier divined by PNoy, she has always been in the minority when it comes to decisions, particularly political issues. But she enjoys it.

Dissenting opinions have their power of persuasion that becomes manifest in the future. Her dissenting opinions may not convince her fellow magistrates, but they could persuade the public and the future generations.

Everything exacerbates when PNoy chose her as the chief justice in 2012 over the heads of senior colleagues, who feel they are God’s gift to judiciary.

Replacing a corrupt and incompetent jurist named Renato Corona, who claim to fame was to play ball with the powers-that-be that included the then first gentleman Miguel Arroyo, was not an easy task for the lady justice.

Hence, the Chief Justice has been the single project for the likes of Teresita de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Arturo Brion (he’s retired), and Lucas Bersamin, who felt that anybody among them was better suited to become the chief justice. De Castro, the squared jaw magistrate, has even vowed she would work for her dismissal.

Behaving like the early Christians, who were fed to the angry lions, the Chief Justice stoically endured them, although not without a quiet fight. She has stayed away from them. She prefers not to be part of the “boys’ club,” of which her own colleagues operate like silent fixers.

She has ignored the machinations of faceless and nameless fixers, who try to influence the High Court’s decision. She has opted to live the quiet life of a jurist of probity, integrity, and independence.

Moreover, she has chosen to ignore the bitchiness of her colleagues. She knows her colleagues, who have been sources of leaked information that found their way in some smallish newspapers. They do it in utter violations of the traditions of silence in its deliberations.

She knows her own colleagues have been operating quietly to undermine not only her, but the entire Sereno Court.

Some magistrates would throw tantrums when they could not get what they want in and out the en banc sessions, but the Chief Justice would ignore the by going to the next topic in the agenda, which usually reaches at least 400 items during en banc sessions.

As the Chief Justice, she has stuck to rules. She has not accommodated their requests, particularly when it comes to public funds. She would not be part of their corrupt ways. Hence, she has gained nothing but their enmity and animosity.

But the Chief Justice believes that she is not the chief justice to give way to the whims and caprices of her colleagues in the Supreme Court. She would not give way to requests for additional budget if would cost P200,000 at the least.

The Chief Justice was quoted as saying in her April 9 public address to groups of human rights activists that the quo warranto proceedings is being resorted by her own enemies after they could not find any stolen funds in the High Court.

For sure, the travails of the Chief Justice would continue. She would be further subjected to public shaming. She would be replaced. But she is undeterred. Her source of strength is her deep faith in God and the Filipino people.

A prayerful Christian, Sereno believes she would be vindicated maybe not now but sometime in the future. She believes that God would always be kind to her and the Filipino people.

Nevertheless, she believes she has her God on her side.

CHIEF JUSTICE TO LEAD POLITICAL OPPOSITION (A commentary)

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

(N.B. I was at the Quezon City Sports Club this morning to listen to the Chief Justice's address. A lot has been reported by the multitudes of reporters who covered the event. Here's my commentary.)

SHE sounded combative, as she put squarely on the shoulders of the sick old man of the South the move to impeach and remove her from the Supreme Court on what is widely perceived as unconstitutional grounds.

But without batting a eyelash, she dropped strong hints she was willing to lead the stymied political opposition, as she issued a clarion call to activists of all persuasions and faith to unite and face a common enemy, the emerging dictatorship and fight to preserved the restored democracy.

Embattled by an impeachment complaint and a quo warranto petition that both seek her removal from office and pressures for her to resign, Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno seemed to have chosen the perfect venue and occasion to deliver her go-for-broke address - the gathering of hundreds of human rights activists to commemorate the “Araw ng Kagitingan” (Day of Valor) at the Quezon City Sports Club.

After receiving a recognition for her stand on the issues of human rights, martial law, and burial of Marcos remains at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani from four human rights organizations, the Chief Justice perorated for almost an hour her strongest attack on what could be regarded a conspiracy among the people of power to remove her from her post.

She denounced the sick old man for conspiring with the complainant of her impeachment raps and meeting him in Malacanang, Solicitor General Jose Calida for filing a constitutionally flawed quo warranto complaint, and her colleagues for entertaining Calida’s petition and conspiring to oust her without giving her a semblance of fairness.

But those things did not end unnoticed from the Chief Justice's standpoint. She said: “I won’t compromise. I won’t bow to the powers-that-be.” It was the Chief Justice's way to declare and open war against her tormentors and enemies. She has crossed her Rubicon.

But the most significant implication of her speech is how she has started to forged an alliance with the human rights activists. What she did this morning was a far departure for her predecessors, who avoided the political limelight and were contended to lead a quiet, sedentary lifestyle away from the crowd.

As her way of seeking unity with the various groups, the Chief Justice opened her speech with the following: “Magkakasama na tayo at hindi maghihiwalay (We would be together and we would not part ways).”

She ended her speech with the same persuasive call for the various groups and organizations to unite to put an end to injustice and pursue the themes of justice, truth, and righteousness. She has made it clear that it was a fight for democracy and truth.

In a way, the speech makes her a political chief justice. But it has to be understood within the context of an emerging authoritarian rule, which the sick old and his minions have been pursuing.

When her speech ended, I had a brief conversation with Joel Saracho, a journalist, writer, and awarded actor, who told me in no uncertain terms that the Chief Justice knew the fate awaiting her in the oral arguments tomorrow in Baguio City. Joel said she knew her colleagues would do everything to remove her.

Nevertheless, we both agreed that the Chief Justice could be the new center of political gravity. The Chief Justice indeed could unify the fragmented political opposition and her projected removal could be the much awaited rallying point to terminate the nightmare created by the sick old man’s government.

Joel noted Vice President Leni Robredo has always been hesitant to take the mantle of leadership to lead the political opposition against the sick old man. The emergence of the Chief Justice is a blessing, he said in a comment that drew my tacit approval.

We both agreed that the fact the Chief Justice is picking up the mantle of leadership without a burden of previous political affiliation is an advantage. The fact that she has been largely apolitical in her professional career could be her attraction. It could work to her advantage and the political opposition, which she would eventually lead as well.

Yes, the Chief Justice has become political; she would likely lead the political opposition. But it has to be asserted too that she did not – and has not - sought it. On the contrary, she has been pushed on the wall. She has no choice but to respond to the stimulus.

Welcome, Madame Chief Justice to the democratic political opposition.
#ArawNgKagitingan
#StandWithCJ
#QuoWarrantoIbasura

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS LOOMS IN SUPREME COURT

Philip M. Lustre Jr.

SO they claim it’s a done deal. They have the votes of eight justices at the very least. They consider it as the minimum number to oust Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno from her post. At most, they are projecting a vote of 10-3.

But that is not the impeachment complaint, which the House of Representatives has yet to finish as official business before it brings it to the Senate for a public trial of the Chief Justice. That is the quo warranto petition, which Solicitor General Jose Calida has filed in a move to oust the Chief Justice fro her post.

The quo warranto petition is a legal monstrosity. It would not withstand the rigors of a challenge on its constitutionality. It is a move out of desperation or political expediency by the government of the sick old man of the South.

The 1987 Constitution provides the Chief Justice could be removed only by impeachment. The Constitution says only Congress can initiate impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice. It is written on solid rock.

The Constitution does not empower the magistrates to remove the head of the Judiciary by a majority vote. The Supreme Court is not a social club, where majority of the members of the board of directors or trustees could remove the president. It is not the Rotary, Kiwanis, or Lions Club, or any other clubs.

What the magistrates would soon embark is a gross violation of the Constitution. This is the reason they have not admitted or declared publicly they are giving due course to Calida’s petition. They are damned afraid of the consequences of any official admission.

If ever they could not get the votes, they could just say they are not giving due course to the petition and they would be throwing it away. They know that the moment they admit they are giving due course, they would be subject to future impeachment complaints for culpable violation of the Constitution. This is one of the six grounds for impeachment under the Constitution.

But removing the Chief Justice does not end the power play there. They will create a constitutional crisis that could have profound adverse effects to the Judiciary in particular and the country in general.

The magistrates would be starting a new power game. Removing the Chief Justice by quo warranto could mean a future winner take all situation.

Let me explain.

Removing the Chief Justice by quo warranto could only go so far. It would not stop the Chief Justice from claiming back the Office she is currently occupying. It would not stop the next government to give it back to her either because it rightfully belongs to her.

She could take it back because her removal is unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, and a gross violation of her constitutional rights for a fair trial.

If ever she would be removed after the April 10 oral arguments in Baguio City, all she has to do is to make public declaration of her claim of the Office of the Chief Justice on the ground that she has been removed on unconstitutional grounds. She could cite as claim of that the assertion that Supreme Court has usurped the powers of Congress to impeach and remove her.

She could further claim that what has been happening in the Supreme Court is not just a gross violation of the Constitution, but a failure to recognize the basic principle of checks of balance, where each branch of government goes to check the other branches to prevent abuse of power.

It would appear that the next government has no legal impediment to run after the justices, who would give due course to the quo warranto petition.

The active ones could face impeachment raps, while the retired ones would be subjected to anti-graft charges.

Either way, they cannot escape public accountability. They would account and explain their moves – sometime in the future.

#QuoWarrantoIbasura

#StandWithjCJ

JUDICIAL TYRANNY BY SUPREME COURT

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

WHAT is happening to the judiciary is most deplorable.

The judiciary, represented by the Supreme Court, is dangerously swinging to a new form of extremism, when it jettisons the time-honored principle of rule of law and creates its own form of judicial overreach, or even tyranny.

Its decision to give due course to the quo warranto petition earlier filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida virtually negates the constitutional provision that the Chief Justice could only be removed by impeachment.

Incidentally, the High Court is tackling Calida’s petition even without proclaiming publicly and officially that it is giving due course to it. A public admission would be sufficient for a citizen to file impeachment suits on those magistrates for culpable violation of the Constitution, which is one of the six grounds for impeachment.

The Supreme Court - minus the Chief Justice, who is officially on leave – creates illegally the rule that the Chief Justice could be removed by mere votes of its members. Hence, it is no different from a social club that kicks out its president by votes of its board of directors or trustees.

Calida’s petition seeks to kick out the Chief Justice out of the Supreme Court for her failure to submit her SALNs for two years. Calida wants her out on issue of “integrity,” which he himself has failed to define.

Incidentally, the Chief Justice would be judged by colleagues, whom themselves have failed to submit their own SALNs not only for two years but for longer period of time. Besides, the Chief Justice would be judged by colleagues who have yet to show cold neutrality and impartiality.

Four or five of her colleagues have shown animosity and obsession to destroy her, when they appeared in the public hearings of the Umali impeachment committee and gave incriminating testimonies.

The judicial overreach, where the Supreme Court has been doing functions not specifically mandated by the 1987 Constitution and ergo, outside the ambit of the time honored principle of rule of law, is considered bad for our restored democracy.

The judiciary and mass media are considered the two institutions that constitute the bedrock of democracy. The judiciary is the court of law, while mass media is the virtual court of public opinion.

While their processes differ (judiciary is slow, deliberate, and structured, while mass media is exact opposite), a vigilant judiciary and a vigorous mass media enable citizens to go to them and seek redress of grievances. Without the two institutions, it is inconceivable how democracy would flourish.

A failed democracy is usually a function of a failed judiciary. The judiciary, along with mass media, serves as a referee in the pursuit of the ideals of democracy, where the majority rules and the minority is protected.

What is happening is the sordid reality that the Supreme Court is fast becoming an instrument of an emerging authoritarianism. It is most saddening to note that the magistrates are allowing themselves to be used without exactly knowing or understanding the end game.

By dwelling on its obsession to kick out the Chief Justice, they hardly know and understand that these magistrates a new situation, which they would have no control. This is a situation that would the country in a much bigger, more problematic situation.

Those supposed erudite men and women of the High Court are the enemies of our democracy.

DONE DEAL IN SUPREME COURT

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

FROM all indications, it’s a done deal for the Supreme Court justices. By all means, largely foul and, ergo, nauseating and revolting, the magistrates would proceed to oust Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno from her post.

From all indications, the April 10 oral arguments at the Supreme Court summer office in Baguio City would be only for show. The oral arguments would be held to show to the public a semblance of a process.

Let’s review the recent developments.

Just yesterday, the Supreme Court released a copy of a resolution, saying that the Chief Justice’s appearance at the SC oral arguments is premised on the precondition for her to acknowledge and accept its jurisdiction over the quo warranto petition, which Solicitor General Jose Calida had earlier filed case.

A closer look would show a diabolical agenda for the resolution. The magistrates were setting a trap, an impossible condition before allowing the Chief Justice to present her side of the scheduled oral arguments.

The Chief Justice, in an earlier letter to the SC, said she would want to appear and speak in the oral arguments, but she has made herself clear that her appearance should not be in any way taken or construed as acceptance of the SC’s jurisdiction over Calida’s quo warranto petition. On the contrary, she has expressed intention to raise questions about its jurisdiction.

A few minutes later, the SC issued a second resolution amending the first. This time, they deleted the dubious precondition. Apparently, the magistrates felt they would look like a bunch of tyrants – or fools – for imposing the ridiculous and unacceptable precondition.

Although the magistrates are known for their unparalleled legal erudition, they do not like to be perceived by the discriminating public as “may mga katok sa utak (they have cracks in their brains).” Who is in his right mind would accept their precondition?

They seemed afraid to be perceived as judicial tyrants especially after talks had circulated that the five justices, whom the Chief Justice wanted to inhibit for manifest partiality and, ergo, out of the oral arguments, would not inhibit and ergo, would appear in the April 10 oral arguments in Baguio City.

Diosdado Peralta, the senior magistrate who want to be the next chief justice by outmaneuvering Antonio Carpio, the acting chief justice, was said to have been in touch with Calida. He even promised Calida, the Chief Justice’s tormentor, that the five justices would not inhibit and appear at the oral arguments.

This development is being exacerbated by the fact that the Supreme Court has not made any official admission that it was giving due course to Calida’s petition. It has been silent for the obvious reason that an open admission could constitute culpable violation of the Constitution, one of the six grounds for impeachment.

The justices do not relish a situation they would face future impeachment suits. This is a total demonstration of judicial cowardice. Their lack of moral courage is obvious.

Moreover, the move of the magistrates to dismiss outright the interventions sought by interested parties like the Makabayan bloc appears to be an indication of judicial overreach or tyranny. There was no explanation whatsoever of the outright dismissal.

In the case of the intervention filed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the nation’s premier organization of lawyers, the SC resolution merely indicated “noted,” which is something that has not been amply explained or clarified. The separate interventions sought by Senators Antonio Trillanes IV and Leila De Lima remain pending before the High Court.

Just to recapitulate, the cards are heavily stacked against the Chief Justice.

The quo warranto petition, which seeks her dismissal from office for her failure to submit SALNs for two years, is inherently flawed. The 1987 Constitution says the Chief Justice could only be removed by impeachment. The Constitution does not provide any other way to remove the sitting Chief Justice.

Granting for the sake of argument that a quo warranto petition could remove an impeachable public official, Calida’s petition should have been immediately thrown out because it has failed the one-year prescriptive period. The existing law says a quo warranto petition should be filed no less than one year after a certain public official has assumed office.

In the Chief Justice’s case, the petition has been filed five years after she has been in office. This makes Calida’s petition an absolutely ridiculous proposition.

What could be the ultimate insult to basic intelligence is the fact that the Chief Justice would be judged by his colleagues, who themselves had failed to submit their respective SALNs. De Castro, Carpio, and Peralta did not submit SALNs, when the Judicial and Bar Council named the five nominees for the position of chief justice.

This is not the end of the story. Although the magistrates are holding oral arguments, they are making it difficult for mass media and interested parties to gain access to the event.

The rules the magistrates are imposing make it difficult for open coverage.

Moreover, a draft decision or ponencia, which Justice Noel Tijam, the ponente, has been circulating for the justices. Even Tijam argued there was no need for the oral arguments in what appear to be a fitting demonstration of efforts to railroad the process.

What now appears is a clear demonstration of judicial tyranny. There is no way to describe the magistrates but tyrants in robes.

Without them knowing or acknowledging it, what we now have is a situation where the Supreme Court is the institution which is on trial before the court of public opinion. Not the Chief Justice, but the magistrates in robes.
#StandWithCJ
#QuoWarrantoIbasura