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
No comments:
Post a Comment