The court’s silence continues

IN its decision last May 11, 2018, the Supreme Court finally spoke on the quo warranto petition filed against the chief justice. The ruling granting the petition was immediately executory, although it will not become final until the lapse of the required period for the filing of a motion for reconsideration.

The day of finality has yet to come, but the court’s ruling has already generated varied reactions from the public, based essentially on their views and opinions on the grant or denial of the petition.

The respondent Sereno – after a few days of silence (presumably to compose herself, collect her thoughts, and plan) – came out with her strongest statement yet against President Duterte whom she presumes to be the moving mind behind her ouster. She asked for his resignation, the first perhaps of many and presumably escalating calls against the President as the political atmosphere for May, 2019 heats up.

In a feigned pique for having been denied the opportunity to sit in judgment over Sereno’s impeachment case, 15 senators immediately indicated that they would file a resolution to ask the court to uphold the Constitution and to review the decision to oust Sereno from the chief justice post.

Not to be outdone, an opposition congressman also bared his plan to file an impeachment complaint against the eight justices who had voted to grant the quo warranto petition. He forecasts that the move would enjoy bipartisan support, as well as positive response from civil society groups.

In whispers, people in the know – including members of the court – speak of how behind-the-scene moves have been and are being undertaken by supposed exemplars of incorruptibility, to influence the justices to favorably decide in Sereno’s favor.

In the face of all these, the court has maintained its traditional silence, in the same manner that it had been silent despite the obvious violations of the sub judice rule during the pendency of the quo warranto petition.

The court’s silence is not without its reasons.

First, the justices cannot but be aware that the losing respondent and her allies are now fishing for support for their claim of bias and other similar reasons that would negatively portray the court’s ruling.

Silence is the best antidote for this kind of ploy. The court, though, has not been known to be hesitant when the need to be heard arises. In its quo warranto decision, it decreed without hesitation and equivocation that:

”Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is ordered to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from receipt hereof why she should not be sanctioned for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct for transgressing the sub judice rule and for casting aspersions and ill motives to the Members of the Supreme Court.”

The respondent has apparently taken serious notice of the sword in the court’s scabbard as she has so far been subdued in her comments about the decision and the justices. She has sense enough to discern that if the court could oust her from office, it would not also hesitate to impose a lesser penalty at the proper time; her inter-actions with the court would thus be better devoted to her motion for reconsideration and the court-demanded explanation.

Second, beyond its publicity value, the Senate move does not make much sense unless it was intended for a purpose beyond mere review and was planned with many moves into the future in mind.

That Sereno would file a motion for reconsideration of the quo warranto ruling is a given. The call for a review is therefore unnecessary. Only the Senate’s invocation of the Constitution makes some sense, but this cannot be any stronger than the same prayer that respondent Sereno would make.

From the legal perspective, the court’s projected review would not use the high-sounding but abstract concepts of “independence” and “democracy” except as general overarching principles; its immediate standards would be the Constitution’s specific terms, the applicable laws, jurisprudence and the facts on record, as every law student knows. Senator Panfilo Lacson very aptly observed that a Senate resolution is premature; the Senate has no present authority to take action in the absence of articles of impeachment duly forwarded to the Senate.

Whether an impeachment move (based on culpable violation of the Constitution for usurping the prerogative of Congress to act against impeachable officials) would prosper at the House of Representatives against the 8 justices who had opposed Sereno, appears to be unlikely; the endorsement of the move by former Chief Justice Hilario Davide would not be of much help.

The proposed move, to my mind, is procedurally weak while the cited ground is so heavily loaded with arguable and unsettled points that it might never achieve the momentum for a take-off.

An impeachment is essentially a political process and unavoidably takes on a political hue. The opposition at the House has not shown so far the political strength sufficient to carry an impeachment complaint to successful fruition.

The legal issues the complaint potentially raises, on the other hand, are many, complicated, and contentious, and can only languish at the several levels of deliberations at the House. They likewise need supporting facts in hearings that can interminably drag on.

Extralegal and illegal attempts to influence justices are doomed to fail. Justices know themselves, their law, their court, the dynamics of corruption, and the risks involved in all the decisions they make. They are not strangers, too, to those who wish to influence their decisions, whether these wouldbe fixers, be the cajoling, gift-giving, pressuring, praying, or the threatening kinds. They have seen them all and they shall stand fast and firm.

To take a broader look at the Sereno affair narrative, the tale has now taken identifiable twists and turns from its start as an impeachment complaint.

From a largely political move made before a political body, the affair metamorphosed after preliminary hearings, into a legal battle at the Supreme Court with a lot of intruding noise from the sidelines. The media added color and excitement, and fully served Sereno’s moves to politicize the petition.

Now that the legal battle is almost over, Sereno and her allies appear reluctant to allow the matter to fade away; the current concerted attempt to attract media and public attention is palpable. I can only conclude that another metamorphosis is in the offing, this time into a battle with clear electoral objectives in mind – the elections of May, 2019.

I also surmise that Sereno must have a very hefty war chest at her command, far surpassing the already substantial funds that must have been used to support her quo warranto propaganda moves. (Vice President Robredo had the foresight to publicly claim that her electoral fight had depleted her personal finances.)

Where Sereno’s sizeable funds are coming from is, of course, another story. Abangan….