Gutted, but this, too, shall pass

But why is the decision still so gutting? It is not about Sereno even if she is the central figure in the controversy

We are not supposed to be surprised. Two days before the Supreme Court met en banc, the Philippine Daily Inquirer ran a story that Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno will be removed by her peers, voting 8-6 in the quo warranto proceedings initiated by the solicitor general. The Inquirer’s numbers proved to be accurate; the Supreme Court does not seem to be too good at keeping secrets.

But why is the decision still so gutting? It is not about Sereno even if she is the central figure in the controversy. Rather it is about what the ouster, particularly the manner in which it was carried out, represents.

And what exactly does it represent? Violence, that’s what, to time-honored concepts such as the primacy of the Constitution, the independence of the judiciary, and obeisance to the rule of law. I blame my law professors for making me believe that these principles are cast in granite and immune to the passing fancies of anyone who is not a despot or beholden to one.

They could have removed Sereno and it wouldn’t have hurt if the process, that I was made to understand in law school was the appropriate one, was observed. An impeachable official can be removed only through impeachment. That was what our constitutional law professor taught us. The thought now that he was wrong after all hurts.

But was he? Can an impeachable official really be removed by quo warranto even if it is not so stated in the constitution? Or should the framers of future constitutions be now warned that statutory construction is not enough so that if the intent were to limit the mode of removing impeachable officials to impeachment, it should be so written? Like adding a phrase, “... by impeachment only to the exclusion of all others including and more particularly quo warranto.”?

How long, can you imagine, would our constitution be if we write it like we’re writing a deed of sale - sell, cede, transfer and convey absolutely and unconditionally - in order to provide no room for interpretation?

Assuming that quo warranto is allowable against impeachable officials, doesn’t the rule say that it should be filed within one year from the time that the cause for filing it occurred? Doesn’t it injure the rule of law if we bend over backward to accommodate a belatedly filed petition by a sovereign king as the solicitor general has described himself?

Malacañang is gloating over the ouster as proof of the independence of the judiciary. Let us grant that Malacañang did not intervene even after President Duterte declared Sereno as his enemy. But doesn’t independence include freedom from one’s self, from anger and other emotions?

I am gutted but this, too, shall pass. Nothing is permanent in this world. Not even power.