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.