Door to door politics
Election or appointment gets you into office through the front door. Quo Warranto, Recall, Impeachment are remedies to remove you without infringing the democratic manner of your assumption. Vox populi, for elective offices, and confidence in the stability of public positions, in the case of appointees, dictate the rigorous application of these backdoor mechanisms.
Instead of being strictly enforced, what we are seeing is how they are being strangely enforced.
With the Supreme Court entertaining the petition for Quo Warranto filed against Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno, we are curious as to how the one year filing shelf life will be appreciated. Jurisprudence makes clear that this prescriptive period cannot even be interrupted (by the filing of other administrative remedies). Public interest requires that questions be immediately resolved when the right to public office is in issue. Yet here we are, six years after her appointment, passing upon the Chief Justice’s eligibility.
The Impeachment proceedings in the House also exposed us to stranger things, capped by the appearance of the Associate Justices at the hearings to testify on management styles.
Doormats. We discussed the Executive-Legislative hegemony in our previous writings. Under this administration, we were seeing a strong Executive model and also the Legislative department ascendant. The Supreme Court, enfeebled by the impeachment and conviction of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, was convalescing fast as shown by their strong institutional voice in the DAP and Hacienda Luisita cases. Under the administration of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, the Chief Justice took a stand against the methods of the Anti-Illegal drugs campaign, adding to the shining moments of the Court.
The attacks by the House on the Chief Justice and the stories that followed reopened wounds and upset the balance that the Court was slowly reestablishing. At one end, this has been viewed as merely upholding the law and defending officialdom against assaults on its integrity. Some refer to this tense segment as part of the arduous journey before the hero (the Court) wins the fabled prize of redemption. To others, it’s a plain and simple judicial coup d’etat.
Open door. Don’t look now but the frenzy of activity has called attention to an increasingly higher profile for the Court. It may even emerge as the strongest branch. In this enlightened state, what is to stop it from brandishing the same sword against other impeachable officials and not hesitate to use it?
It may be unthinkable at the moment but Vice Presidents or even Presidents are vulnerable. For the sake of illustration, if any discrepancy should be dug up from their record, e.g. in their certificates of candidacy or in the SALNs they filed when they served as Congressman in the Vice President Leonor Robredo’s case; when he was Fiscal, Mayor, Congressman, Vice-Mayor in PRRD’s case and made subject of a Quo Warranto petition, the Court and even the Solicitor General under the Sereno precedent would be forced to entertain it. We can’t begin to imagine the outrage that would ensue.
Even if there be a convenient ejector seat under every public official, it shouldn’t be this easy to press the button. Remedies exist to be availed of. But care should be observed that they not be manipulated. It helps no one if we become inured to fine line interpretations of power.
Closed door. The House of Representatives has just released its revised rules on media. Subjective and imperious, it effectively charges a fee for coverage of their activities. And that fee is the promise of a favorable report. How else does one interpret the withholding of credentials from members of the press who would “besmirch” the House’s reputation?
The ostensible intent is to assure a systematic and orderly media coverage. Along with these alarming limitations, the rules also curtail the traditional access of media to the House members. No more ambush interviews or live reporting in the hallways of the House.
To be sure, we notice the compromise to the dignity and decorum of the House to have cellphones and tablets indiscriminately shoved in members’ faces. But this is a small price to pay given their giant role in running our nation.
The message conveyed is a disagreeable one. Be opaque, not transparent. The applicable policy is faithfully captured by the Constitution’s Sec. 28, Art. II requiring full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest.
“Congress has always been and must always be the theatre of contending opinions; the forum where the opposing forces of political philosophy meet to measure their strength; where the public good must meet the assaults of local and sectional interests; in a word, the appointed place where the nation seeks to utter its thought and register its will.” Congressional scholar and US President James Garfield. This role is meaningless if carried out in darkness. Keywords are transparency and access. As Justice Brandeis wrote: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”
New key. The nation is beginning to come to terms with an open secret in the academe. You don’t have to go to Manila to get a good legal education. The list of individual topnotchers of the 2017 Bar, after the 2016 top 10 shut out of Metro Manila schools, confirms this.
Any list of top 10 law schools (not individual examinees) taken from the annual results of the new millennium will show the strength of the Visayas and Mindanao contingents. University of San Carlos (USC) and the Ateneo de Davao have consistently placed among the top 5. At times, University of Cebu and Xavier University in CDO would join them in the top 10. Metro Manila rounds out the top 10 with traditional powerhouses, Ateneo, UP, San Beda, UST and Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila in that order. The balance of Luzon is usually represented in the top by Palawan State University.
Congratulations to the 1,724 new officers of the Court!