Descent, dissent from Faura

By

THE day one of the “Gods of Padre Faura” alit recently on the floor of the House of Representatives was a sad day. And when three more came down similarly they proved that they were normal, mortal beings just like the rest of us.

The rest of us mortals aren’t used to seeing the justices of the Supreme Court, unrobed, in public, discoursing with ordinary people. But there they were, engaged in exchanges with representatives of the common people.

But what a disappointment it was to see them as ordinary beings. The woman justice came first. Nothing profound exited her mouth on the Congress floor although, one hastens to speculate, she probably produces erudite dissertations in her court opinions. But at the House she was uninspiring, pretty dull, ordinary. She was even nervous at times.

The other gods from Faura were not much better when their turn came a few days later.

(The “gods of Padre Faura” are so called because as justices of the highest court, the law is what they say it is. They are right even when they’re fallible.)

And what spewed from their mouths was all petty stuff, internal gripes, and administrative grievances that were miles away from even a hint of impeachability.

If the chief justice is a novice in administrative matters, if she is a tyro on the intricacies of the law, and if she’s an amateur in many other things the other justices are expert at, are these grounds for impeachment?

If she ignores the bitchings of a colleague or is deaf to the whinings of others, does that make her a candidate for impeachment?

Or have they lowered the standard for what passes for impeachability so that a shortcoming in the area of court management or a delay in responding to a colleague’s bellyachings is now a ground for impeachment?

From my mere layman’s viewpoint, it’s hard to see any wise reason to try the incumbent chief justice. Unless we just want to get rid of her because she doesn’t want to toe whatever is the prescribed line or that she doesn’t always accept the wisdom of her colleagues. Or that she’s so young she would be occupying her seat for many years.

What a sorry spectacle it’s been at the House, where everyone’s political leanings are shown whenever the people there opened their mouths. No vote is necessary because one can already count them as the congressmen spoke. It’s a forgone conclusion that at the House, the chief justice will be formally impeached.

Unless the people in Congress realize what folly that would be. Why pass the onus on to the Senate, which will act as an impeachment court if a formal impeachment complaint is passed on to the upper house. That would be passing the buck.

The gods, er, justices didn’t add anything persuasive to the arguments for impeachment, for all they dished out were petty gripes and grievances that are better resolved inside the Supreme Court.

But the most disappointing aspect of the justices’ presence at the House hearings was that they exposed themselves as ordinary beings, just like the Kipling character in “The Man who would be King” who was mistaken for a reincarnation of Alexander the Great but, when he bled, was exposed to be all too human.

Same as the justices who alighted from up above and bared themselves as mere mortals. They showed themselves, not quite as pygmies because they’re not that, but rather as puny and lacking in gravitas.

***

Tantrum Ergo. The woman justice and her three male colleagues looked like unhappy grade school teachers running to the district superintendent to gripe against their principal. Will the DepEd in this little imaginary scenario of ours fire the principal? Or not?