DUTERTE REVS UP ‘PLAN C’

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

FEELING the public rejection of two political initiatives to install an authoritarian regime, the Duterte administration is revving up the third initiative to stay in power beyond 2022.

The plan calls for the strengthening of the regional political party Hugpong into a national political party and the launching of the candidacy for senator of Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte, who is being regarded as heir apparent of his father, Rodrigo Duterte.

The plan also calls for a strong finish for Sara in the senatorial race. If she lands on the first three slots, she could be expected to be the presidential candidate in 2022.

According to Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, a bitter critic of the Duterte government, Dutete and his minions could hardly create a dent in the first two initiatives, prompting them to launch “Plan C” as the ultimate way to perpetuate the Dutertes in power beyond 2022.

“Plan A” called for what Duterte described as a “revolutionary government” that would supplant the 1987 Constitution and establish an authoritarian government led by no less than Duterte.

The Armed Forces flatly rejected it. Had Duterte resorted to it, Vice President could have been sworn as president.

Duterte, through his supporters, attempted to create a condition to actualize it. They held the Nov. 30, 2017 rallies in at least 12 cities nationwide to drumbeat public support. But only a handful showed up in each of the public rallies, creating the perception that it had no public support.

This year, Duterte has activated “Plan B,” when he had created a 22-man consultative constitutional committee to draft the proposed shift to a federal form of government.

The so-called “Digong Constitution” has been so scandalously drafted, as it contains transitory provisions where, after dividing the country into 18 federated states, Duterete would reign as dictator, who would enjoy executive, legislative, and judicial powers to keep the 18 states together.

It is not gaining ground. Actually, it is destined to the garbage bin of history. Even Duterte does not appear enthusiastic in a proposed constitution drafted by guys mostly from Mindanao. The Senate and his economic managers are among those opposing it.

The remaining political initiative is to have Sara Duterte elected as senator and finally, as the successor to his father. This is most apparent if she lands as one of the first three senators next year.

The father and daughter tandem has initiated it by replacing Leon Alvarez with Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as speaker. They have to firm up an alliance with Arroyo to generate strength in Luzon and the Visayas.

They appear bent to destroy PDP-Laban as the dominant political party and replace it with Hugpong, which is now derisively called "Hukbo ng mga Ulupong" by its critics. 

How they could achieve Plan C remains to be seen.

CONFLICTING POLICIES ON ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

HAD the government followed consistently its energy policies and programs, the Philippines would not have any looming energy crisis. It would secure its energy requirements. But it has been flip-flopping on its energy policies.

Overall, the state policy has been to develop as nontraditional sources the so-called “renewable” like sunlight, wind, rain, tides and geothermal heat. The intention is to wean the country away from the traditional sources, largely the fossil-based fuels.

But this is not done overnight. Less polluting fossil-based fuel like liquefied natural gas could be the bridge between traditional and nontraditional sources of energy. This is an area, where the government does not seem attuned.

Consider the following:

Recently, President Rodrigo Duterte inaugurated the 420-megawatt (MW) Pagbilao power plant, a coal-fired facility seeking to boost energy supply in the Luzon grid. Duterte lauded the $976-million power facility which, saying the steady power supply would enhance the country’s business climate. It would generate billions of pesos in revenues for the national and local governments.

The project proponent, Pagbilao Energy Corp. (PEC), is a joint venture between TPEC Holdings Corp. and Therma Power Inc., both subsidiaries of Team Energy and Aboitiz Power, respectively. Although the plant is fueled by coal, which environmentalists consider as harmful, it is nonetheless “cost effective and complies with environmental standards.” It is claimed the plant has a flue-gas desulfurizer to ensure compliance with environmental regulations.

The government has given the green light to the coal-based energy plant even though the global clamor is to develop environment-friendly energy sources that leave little or no carbon footprint. In fairness, the Duterte government has not turned its back on nontraditional sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal, among others.

In August last year, the President inaugurated the Solar Philippines factory in Santo Tomas, Batangas. This would ensure availability of affordable solar panels to average Filipino consumers. It would place the Philippines as a major player in the global renewable energy revolution.

Solar panels have been getting more competitive in recent years to the detriment of traditional sources of energy. The cost issue is getting resolved, as the solar panel costs have fallen 90 percent over the last decade, and 50 percent over the last three years alone. It encourages big countries like China and India to get the majority of their new power requirements from the renewables.

Because of the new economics of solar prices, a number of soon-to-be constructed coal plants worldwide faces cancellation. They are not just commercially viable; they are also causing pollution to the environment. The two faces of Philippine energy development policy appear obvious on the two projects.

These are not all.

The energy policy environment has become more complicated by the flip-flopping policy stance on liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Duterte administration does not seem to understand how it would take LNG as a fuel alternative, or bridge between the traditional and nontraditional energy sources.

Let’s discuss the issue. The Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Hub Receiving Terminal, a 650MW combined cycle gas fired power plant, is another energy project, which is in the pipeline in Pagbilao, Quezon. Australian-based Energy World Corp. (EWC) said its liquefied natural gas terminal, now 90 percent complete, is to become a hub of LNG distribution nationwide once it becomes fully operational.

A disclosure report to the Australian Securities Exchange, EWC said the facility could handle yearly three million metric tons of LNG. Its first tank could support 3,000 megawatts of gas-fired power plants. “This will support our adjacent 650MW combined cycle gas fired power plant, and provide expansion options for both EWC and its third-party gas clients,” EWC said explained.

Natural gas is called “clean” because of its ability to emit 50 percent less carbon dioxide than coal when burning. It is seen as the bridge fuel until the zero-carbon-producing renewables can take over. Natural gas is also a fossil fuel, but cleaner and more efficient than other traditional fuels. It produces less pollution and greenhouse gases than its counterparts, according to the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas.

The terminal’s deep water jetty could handle all sizes of LNG vessels. EWC received an approval from the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) to develop a point-to-point transmission facility to connect its 650-MW combined cycle gas plant to the power grid. The ERC has allowed EWC to develop the P694-million transmission facility to connect its power plant to the New Pagbilao Station of the National Grid Corp. of the Philippines.

The LNG Hub Terminal and the Power Station have both reached advanced stage of construction. The LNG Hub Terminal, the first to be constructed here, can process three million tons of LNG every year to generate up to 3,000MW of power. The second tank, which is also under construction, could provide up to 6,000MW of power.

The project means over $750 million of direct investments; it has created over 800 direct jobs during the construction period. It signifies that the country will now be able to gain access to clean and affordable fuel for power generation and further develop its gas infrastructure.

It can commission the first 200MW unit of its gas-fired power station in six months after the drawdown of funds from the firm’s bank lenders - the Development Bank of the Philippines, Land Bank of the Philippines and Asia United Bank, with the 400MW and 650MW at three-month intervals thereafter.

But it appears the Australian-based Energy World Corp.’s (EWC) Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Hub Receiving Terminal project in Pagbilao, Quezon, has either been trapped in a bureaucratic quagmire, or stymied by a group that may be inimically affected by its implementation.

Although the project has been reported to have been 90 percent, it has grounded to a halt to the chagrin and disbelief of its stakeholders. But that is another story.

Next topic: The bureaucratic quagmire

LENI ROBREDO'S GAMBIT

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

VICE President Leni Robredo's announcement that she would assume the mantle of leadership of the disparate opposition forces in the country was not a spur-of-the-moment initiative to project her relevance in the political spectrum.

It was part of a well- conceived, carefully laid down plan to present herself as the democratic alternative, even as President Rodrigo Duterte continues to take moves to plunge the nation into another political experiment in authoritarianism.

She has several audience on this initiative: first, the country's democratic forces, which continue to oppose Duterte's counterrevolution to the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution; and second, the international community, which has been strongly opposing the spate of extrajudicial killings (EJKs) and other human rights violations under his government.

The men and women in uniform in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP), constitute the third audience. They have the monopoly of arms and could be decisive to stem the tide of authoritarianism.

Although perceived as the laid back leader from the laid back Naga City, the Vice President was reluctant to lead the democratic forces, until it has become clear that Duterte would do every means - fair or foul - to install dictatorship in the country.

Moreover, it has been made clear that Duterte would continue his appeasement policy even to the point of surrendering the country's territories in the contested West Philippine Sea to China. The Vice President has been strongly against the pro-China stance of the Duterte government.

Two developments could have propelled the Vice President's decision to go all out against Duterte. The first is the multinational initiative to neutralize and stop finally China's inroads in the South China Sea.

The multinational forces led by the United States and composed of Japan, France, Great Britain, and South Korea, have assumed a more visible and tougher presence in South China, indicating they would enforce the 2012 decision of the United Nations Permanent Arbitral Commission rejecting China's claim over the contested waters. They have sent their naval warships to counter China's naval presence in the area.

The Vice President could have sense that the U.S.-led multinational forces are not abandoning South China Sea; they are willing to safeguard the vital sea lanes to ensure a free flow of commerce. About $5 trillion worth of commerce passes through the South China Sea. Hence, the country or group of nations that controls South China Sea controls world trade.

The Vice President has understood that Philippine politics could be somehow dovetailed to the strategic objectives of the U.S.-led multinational coalition in the South China Sea. When she sensed that the multinational coalition would not leave South China Sea, she knew that China would have very limited way to prop up the Duterte government. The Duterte government is lameduck to say the least.

The Vice President's decision to lead the opposition and present a democratic alternative is also an impetus for the AFP and PNP to ignore Duterte's overtures for the two institutions to join him in his anti-democratic initiatives. The 32 years of restored democracy could have injected democratic values and ideals into the two institutions.

Her move would allow the leaders of the two institutions to pause and take notice of the democatic alternative. In fact, several AFP leaders have been pushing her and the democratic forces to show a critical mass of adherents to strengthen opposition to the Duterte government. Any withdrawal of their support to the Duterte government is largely a function of a strong democratic alternative. 

Very recently, the AFP leadership has taken a strong position against the removal of the AFP as "protector of the people" provision in the new constitution, which Duterte's minions have conceived to replace the 1987 Constitution.

Of course, the democratic forces composed of the alphabet soup of civil society organizations that oppose the authoritarian tendencies of the current government have been asking the Vice President to lead them. She could not fail them.

REGULATORY MAZE, BIG INVESTMENTS HAUNT 3RD TELCO PLAYER

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

THEY are doing it the wrong way.

Because the Duterte administration has started on the wrong foot, it would be difficult for the government to select without hitches the third telecommunications player. It would also be difficult too for the third telco player to start operations within this year or even next year. The regulatory requirements are firmly in place.

Hence, the circumvention of the legal processes could only create future problems for the third telco firm, particularly when President Rodrigo Duterte is no longer in power. Cutting corners is the not the way to do it. It could lead to future disasters.

Consider the following:

First, the proposed creation of a consortium of foreign and local telecommunications to establish and operate the third telecommunications player to compete with the duopoly of PLDT Group and Globe Telecom is not the right approach. What the law says is that the telco player should be a joint venture firm, where the foreign firm owns at most 40 percent of the total equity.

The letter, spirit, and intent of the 1987 Constitution is specific. Foreign firms could only own up to 40 percent of the equity of a public utility, including telecommunications; the rest belongs to local firms. Besides, forming a joint venture firm would take at least six months. Prospective partners have to perform due diligence studies on the corporate fitness, financial muscle, technological and technical competence, and business standing and reputation of involved companies.

Second, the President cannot just issue an executive order to allow the third telco player to operate. It could later be questioned and declared inexistent from the start. Under the law, the telco player has to possess a congressional franchise and a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) from the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), the quasi-judicial body that regulates the entry and operations of telecommunications firms in the country.

“We can’t just rush it, if we want a strong telco that can compete with Globe and PLDT,” said Undersecretary Eliseo Rio Jr., the concurrent officer-in-charge of the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT). Based on estimates, the new telco player should have this minimum capital structure: authorized, P160 billion; subscribed, P40 billion; and paid-up, P10 billion.

Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III earlier said in his Twitter account that the entry of the third telco firm could not be rushed because the prospective firm would need at least P200 billion to start up and compete with PLDT and Globe Groups.

Independent analysts said the third telecom player would require at least P500 billion ($10 billion) for the first five years, but added the heavy financial outlay could be a disincentive for prospective foreign investors because of the uncertainty of recovering the amount within a reasonable period of time. Even China Telecom was reported to have second thoughts of entering the Philippine market.

Fast track entry

The President has directed state agencies to hasten and facilitate the entry of the third telco player, which, he said, should compete with the PLDT-Globe duopoly. In what could be perceived his unfamiliarity on the dynamics of the local telecommunications sector, he wanted the third telco player to start operations by March this year. This was something that would not happen as subsequent developments would show.

Duterte was partial to the state-owned China Telecom to be the foreign firm of the third telco player in joint venture – or consortium - with local firms. But forming a behemoth firm to compete with two conglomerates is not that easy. Involved parties have to engage in a maze of regulatory requirements.

These are not all. Certain regulatory issues have to be laid down even before the third telco player could be formed to enter the Philippine market. The DICT is currently working on the guidelines to use for the selection of the third telco player, although it has been widely perceived these guidelines are all pro forma to suit the entry of the favored China Telecom.

Even Rio would not readily talk on the guidelines, except to stress that the prospective third player should be totally a separate entity from both Globe and PLDT. According to Rio, the third telco firm would not be named before the July 24 State of the Nation Address (SONA) of the President.  Most likely, it would be done in August at the earliest. What the President would announce in his SONA are the potential bidders, but not necessarily the winning bidder.

Press reports said four local firms in “consortium with foreign telecommunications firms” have expressed interest to bid as the third telco player. Rio said the foreign firms are China Telecom, LGU+ of South Korea, KDDI Corp. of Japan, and certain unidentified firms from Vietnam and the United States.

“They are still waiting for the final terms of reference (TOR) before they really come out. We are getting interest from four serious interested consortia with foreign partners. Until we have them really confirm, we cannot discuss them,” said Rio, who was in Cebu said in a forum in Cebu City.

Consortium approach

The consortium approach Rio has been saying would not work as Philippine laws and implementing rules and guidelines do not allow consortia of whatever kind to enter into contracts with government. Under the law, only natural persons and “artificial persons” like partnerships and corporations could enter into contracts. A joint venture firm is regarded a partnership and, ergo, could enter into a contract with the government.

Why Rio was using the word consortium in his public pronouncements is not known. Consortium is too loose a word for big ticket projects like the third telco player. The looming project requires a firmer, solid word to describe. The law requires a joint venture between foreign and local partners so that a state contract in the form of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity could be issued.

It would be wrong to say that a mere presidential approval, or the DICT’s, would be enough for the third telco project to operate. It has no legal power, according to legal pundits. Hence, a presidential directive through an executive order, or whatever piece of paper would be insufficient to satisfy the regulatory requirements.

The third telco firm would need a congressional franchise. Aside from the congressional franchise, it needs a CPCN. The NTC, as the quasi-judicial regulatory agency that deals with the telecommunications sector, would have to conduct public hearings to find out the fitness of the third telco player. By satisfying the requirements – legal, financial, technological, marketing, among other things – the NTC could issue the CPCN.

Two groups are being prominently mentioned as local partner of China Telecom: the Buddy Zamora group, which has acquired PT&T, a local firm; and NOW, the Manny Villar firm, which has acquired a congressional franchise. PT&T has a congressional franchise that dates back to RCPI, its old name. PT&T has experience in telecommunications business, but NOW has none.

Incidentally, forming a joint venture firm would take at least 6 months; it could go and drag for a year or two, as in most big firms. China Telecom and its local partner would have to conduct due diligence studies; each party has to determine the fitness of the other party as a joint venture partner.

Each party has to study their corporate and financial standing, prestige, technical and technological competence, and other legal, technical, and financial issues before any joint venture deal is sealed.  They have to look into each other’s financial statements and corporate history. They cannot afford to have a half-baked joint venture pact.

Overall, the third telco would need at least two years to operate fully. After satisfying the regulatory requirements in the next 12 months, it has to put the infrastructure in the next 12 months so that it could operate fully. The infrastructure issue is another matter to consider.

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.