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.