No-confidence
Chief Justice-on-leave Ma. Lourdes Sereno, it seems, does not fully grasp the extent of the predicament she is in. Last Tuesday, the Supreme Court sitting en banc decided to put Sereno on indefinite leave. The Court is a collegial body. The en banc is the authority to which even the Chief Justice must bow.
The en banc decision was arrived at after the associate justices asked Sereno to explain some of the issues raised against her in the course of the impeachment hearings at the House of Representatives. The Chief Justice, from various reports, refused to explain herself to her colleagues, saying she would defend herself before the impeachment court. By doing that, she denied accountability to the collegial body she is part of. That was not the end of it. Sereno and her overeager lawyers beat the Court in announcing the leave. They tried to characterize the leave as something initiated by Sereno herself, as part of some pre-planned “wellness” break. Sereno, according to their version of events, would use the “wellness leave” to prepare for the nearly certain impeachment trial.
That was a deceitful rendering of what actually transpired.
This was not at all a two-week “wellness leave” decided upon by Sereno herself. This was an “indefinite leave” imposed by the en banc.
There is a whale of a difference. If this were some form of leave Sereno decided to avail of, then it is up to her to decide when to end that leave. If it was, as it turns out, an “indefinite leave” imposed unanimously by the en banc, then it is up to the collegial body to decide when that leave ends.
There are few secrets in this town. Even if the deliberation among the justices was held in their innermost sanctum and traditionally shrouded with confidentiality, the deceit that characterized Sereno’s rendering of events provoked an unprecedented written clarification from the en banc. Hell hath no fury than magistrates scorned. Last Thursday, the 13 justices who participated in the deliberation and arrived at the consensus putting Sereno on indefinite leave caused the issuance of a press statement read by the Court’s spokesman. It was an unprecedented move, this statement signed by 13 justices.
Our justices are normally unflappable, steeped in legal scholarship and seasoned on the bench. Only a Sereno could ruffle their feathers.
From the accounts about Tuesday’s deliberations, it seems indefinite leave is the most merciful option. Some justices have proposed resignation.
The consensus among her peers imposing indefinite leave seems to be the most polite way of saying the en banc has lost confidence in their chief. In some other more civilized setting, Sereno should have gotten the message loud and clear. She would have offered her resignation to spare the court the grief of yet another Chief Justice impeached.
If her colleagues have lost confidence in her, one is hard put to imagine how Sereno could ever win back that confidence. If they have lost their trust in her, there is no way that trust could be regained. Life is short.
By asking Sereno to go on indefinite leave and choosing Justice Antonio Carpio as acting chief justice, the en banc is concluding she is not fit to lead the Court. That is an irreversible conclusion. It surely must have been something very difficult for the magistrates to arrive at. It is a conclusion that cannot be taken back easily.
Sereno, however, is in a deep state of denial. She repeats before anyone who cares to listen that she will never resign her post. She clings to this rather quixotic vision that she will prevail at the impeachment trial.
But her own peers have already tried her and found her wanting. No volume of legalism will alter that conclusion.
We have clearly seen her and her lawyers vainly attempt to mislead all of us. Therefore, we too cannot trust her.
The psychiatrists, the tax examiners, the clerks whose job it is to keep her SALNs secure and, yes, the people who worked with her in the innermost recesses of the shiest branch of government all separately put together the picture of a seriously flawed person. Public opinion will have no reason to disagree.
When the late Renato Corona was impeached, employees of the judiciary organized protests against the obvious persecution. Judges all over bravely stood up for their Chief. Lawyers’ associations came to his defense. The best lawyers volunteered to be on his team although, in the end, they were not match against the juggernaut that is the DAP.
Sereno, by contrast, is fighting her battle alone. The employees of the Court are indifferent. The judges are silent. The lawyers’ associations have issued no statement.
Now her own peers have banished her from the Court. No one can accuse them of judicial independence – only of a passion for conserving public respect for the bench.
Only the Gabriela women’s group has spoken up, but only to twist the issues. This group, for some mysterious reason, insists the decision of the en banc is an act of sexism.
This is about competence, personal integrity and compliance with the rules. It is not about Sereno’s gender.
This is not another Salem witch trial where women who defied the rules of patriarchy are lynched. This is about having a strong judicial institution led by men and women of extraordinary intellect and integrity, men and women who are beyond reproach.