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