Less than a Senate trial would be judicial lynching
THERE is no history and legal precedent that supports the ouster of a sitting Supreme Court chief justice via the judgment of her peers at the bench, through the quickie mode of a quowarranto petition. It is not the constitutional way, either.
The deep and unquestioned anti-Sereno sentiment at the high court and at the Palace may be the compelling argument for a shortcut. The negativity of the CJ (on the personal, not the professional, realm) may be fodder for the bloggers that have portrayed the CJ, a member of the local evangelicals, as the she-devil. But negative sentiment (and the bloggers of impossible venom), however deep and powerful, cannot and does not provide the sound determinants for culpable violation of the constitution and high crimes of which CJ Sereno is accused. The quowar
ranto— this is the fact—entered the Sereno impeachment saga because this is the grandest opportunity to oust the CJ quickly and without fuss, in the version of the solicitor general and the sworn enemies of CJ Sereno at the high court .
The quowarranto petition was an afterthought of the oustSereno group, which, clearly, has the full force of the State behind it. It is only in the current season of anti-Sereno venom that she is deemed “illegal” from Day One of her term.
The constitutional way is the Corona precedent. If the Sen- ate votes “Yes” to the Articles of Impeachment from the House of Representatives, then she has to go and cut short what would have been a record-setting stay as CJ of the Philippine Supreme Court.
The laws of the land, and the reputation of the Supreme Court, will be better off if CJ Sereno’s fate
is determined by a Senate vote. Not to mention the important verdict of the world outside of Trump, Putin and Xi.
If the House has the goods and Mr. Gadon really presented his case against the CJ well, there is nothing to fear but fear itself. The senate will back Gadon’s charges without equivocation. One more item: the canonization of Mr. Gadon will not take place via the quickie, quo warranto petition. He will be a hero in the legal books and the history of the SC only if his case wins the votes of the senators after a trial. Gadon is a seeker of glory, this is very clear, and a quickie quowarranto may not vest on him the glory that he seeks.
The arguments for a Senate trial and verdict, other than the need for the strict adherence to the Constitution, are endless. At this point, we need a public trial of Maria Lourdes Sereno, which only a senate trial would provide.
At this point, what the public knows are these: She is intensely disliked by her colleagues at the high court, the employees and staff included. She is not Ms. Congeniality. She is not Ms Amity. She rubs people the wrong way, even people who ought to sympathize with her.
But whether she is a crook, a legal impostor, one who sells out the country’s interests for secret bank accounts, one who was narrowly missed in the Panama Papers list, one who decides cases like Normandie Pizarro etc. etc., will only be known in a public trial of the CJ at the Senate, with all those inquisitive senators poking and probing at every aspect of her personal and professional life.
The trial will open to the public the decisions she made, the cases she agreed with or argued against. The body of her written work will tell all about the controversial chief justice, whether she is really the woman of strong faith and the ultimate representative of the blindfolded woman of justice, which she claims to be. Or just another legal charlatan with an impressive academic pedigree. In the old democracies, the body of work of a particular high court judge accounts for 99 percent of the legal impression of that particular judge. The legal corpus determines the reputation and public esteem. We are not at that point yet and the Sereno saga is probably the best time to adopt that kind of judicial reckoning.
Does she have the conviction of a Ruth Baden Ginsburg and the writing skills of Elena Kagan? Or just a female ver- sion of Normandie Pizarro? Only a very public trial will tell the public those things.
The quo warranto petition will not be the constitutional way of dealing with the CJ. It will diminish the justice system, the republic as a whole, the country’s international reputation, and deprive people who hunger for the truth the opportunity to listen to the two versions – Gadon’s and hers. A quo warranto will be the equivalent of judicial lynching participated in by a partisan OSG , the ego- bruised justices of the Supreme Court bypassed by CJ Sereno, the top leaders of government, and the pack of hyenas masquerading as citizen- bloggers.
It will be a farce, enveloped in venom, laced with mendacity.
For the sake of the republic, justice and the truth, let the Senate try CJ Sereno.