The SC has spoken, the nation should now move on

IN view of all the heated expressions of support, criticism and doubts about the decision by the Supreme Court on the quo warranto petition by the Philippine government against former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, consequently ousting her from the post, we urge our readers and everyone to:

Take the time to read and comprehend the decision of the court majority as expressed in the ponencia penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam.

It runs long, up to 153 pages of legal explication and argument, but you will find the reading most enlightening and rewarding. The decision is lucid and persuasive. It discusses all the issues and answers all the questions and objections that have been raised by some quarters. At the end of it all, our highest court through the verdict speaks with finality that Ms. Sereno’s appointment as chief justice was void ab initio ( from the beginning), and that, therefore, she should vacate the post.

Interestingly, the Tijam ponencia begins with the word “integrity.” That should indicate to all the seriousness of the constitutional question, and how intensely the decision was debated within the Court en banc.

We thought this exercise useful because there are still some among us who desperately want to believe that the Court’s decision is not final, that the Court could still change its mind and do the unthinkable – reverse itself.

We deem this necessary because much attention and publicity is being given to certain dissenting opinions by some justices who differed with the majority decision, and expressed their opinions in ways calculated to mislead our citizenry.

It is also important to underline here that Ms. Sereno has the right to appeal the Court’s decision. She has 10 days from the date of promulgation to file her appeal.

Based on statements made by her camp, Sereno’s appeal will most likely be filed this week. What happens afterward will be a matter of process. It must be stated, based on court history and records, the chances of the high court reversing itself on the quo warranto petition is dim.

Even in the event of denial of the appeal, some will probably still be unsatisfied.

This endless protestation is, in our view, wearisome and wasteful.

We want to stress one overriding principle in our system of jurisprudence: it is the fact that our Supreme Court is the final judge of this controversy.

The great theorist of liberal democracy, Walter Lippmann, described the high importance of having a high court as final judge in these words:

“In our government, an agency must exist which is the final judge, subject of course to the right of the people to amend the Constitution. If this view were popularly accepted, the question of close ( fivetofour or six- to- three) decisions would cease to be troublesome.

“For men would say that the question had to be decided, that some decision is better than none, and that while men may honestly differ, the majority must rule.”

The majority of our Supreme Court has ruled on the quo warranto petition against Ms Sereno. The Office of the Chief Justice has been declared vacant, and the process of selecting her successor has now begun.