What doesn’t kill her…

Maybe they should have started with the other complaints, which might be meatier. So far, after a day of hearing the testimonies against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, I was left with the impression that the grievances boiled down to sour grapes.

If the testimonies were accurate, Sereno brought her current woes upon herself, by ignoring Supreme Court rules (denied by her camp) and virtually putting Midas Marquez and the office of the court administrator in the freezer.

As for Supreme Court Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, she can be commended for stressing the need for strict adherence to SC rules by its members. If the Chief Justice herself ignores the rules (denied by her lawyers), it sets a bad example.

But is this ground for impeachment? Siquijor Rep. Ramon Rocamora asked De Castro a question that was also on other people’s minds: how did she feel about a colleague many years her junior leapfrogging past everyone and becoming the chief magistrate? De Castro said she did not let emotions rule her actions.

Boosting the impact of Rocamora’s question was the response of the super majority in the House of Representatives. They pounced instantly, reading Rocamora the rules on questioning resource persons and witnesses.

Among the rules: questions already answered should not be asked again. If this were followed, most of the congressmen should be disqualified from grilling House guests. At this point I thought the exchange at the hearing had descended into silliness. I tuned out and switched back to FM radio, just in time to enjoy pop star Charlie Puth crooning about someone just wanting attention.

Rocamora was chastised, but he obtained the higher score in that exchange.

*  *  *

This crisis in the SC has been percolating for some time. Although the judiciary is supposed to be independent, presidents like to believe they can count on their appointees for support in case of legal problems. Many SC justices have disproved this belief, truly acting independently even if it meant going against the wishes of the president who appointed them.

Still, it looks like the belief persists. In 2010, after the Commission on Elections announced the victory of Noynoy Aquino in the presidential race, the incumbent, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, named her former Palace chief of staff Renato Corona as chief justice. The designation, made during the election period, was challenged before the Supreme Court as a midnight appointment by an outgoing president. But it was upheld by the SC, which was packed with Arroyo appointees.

A furious Noynoy Aquino denounced the appointment even before he formally assumed the presidency. He and the judiciary got off to a wrong start; throughout his term, he constantly harped against “judicial overreach.”

Eighteen months into the Aquino administration, Corona was impeached. Five months later, he was convicted by the Senate impeachment court, in a 20-3 vote, and removed from office.

A month earlier, another Arroyo appointee, Merceditas Gutierrez, resigned as ombudsman, 10 days before the start of her Senate impeachment trial.

Unhappy with the GMA appointees in the SC, Aquino named his first appointee to the high tribunal to replace Corona. Never mind if Sereno was the most junior member of the court, and the youngest at the time.

But several of those who were bypassed minded the appointment – and they initially showed it, boycotting the flag ceremonies wherein the Chief Justice presided. SC justices are only human; such appointments inevitably create simmering resentment. Sereno’s appointment embodied the disdain that Aquino openly showed toward the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court.

Aquino did go through the motions of sitting down for a talk with the most senior member of the SC, Justice Antonio Carpio, who was bypassed by Arroyo in favor of Corona.

Carpio later told me that the chat was mainly to inform him that he could not be appointed as chief justice because he had made too many enemies particularly in big business, who were affected by economic liberalization policies he had supported.

*  *  *

With bad blood shown by her peers from Day One, Sereno might have decided that she could accomplish things faster if she bypassed certain rules. For sure, she’s not the only head of an independent branch of government that has done this.

Midas Marquez, who served as spokesman for Corona, was rarely heard from again. Daang matuwid had a low opinion of him.

Also perceived to be driving impeachment efforts against Sereno is the thought that she will be in office for two decades. If the administration and its congressional allies can go after the ombudsman, who is set to retire in mid-2018, how much more Sereno?

As of yesterday, the Chief Justice remained in fighting form, promising to never give up and quit, as suggested by congressmen.

But with the super majority in charge, Sereno looks headed for impeachment. If she refuses to be spooked and to step down like former elections chief Andy Bautista, we will have an impeachment trial at the start of 2018.

Such a trial will require more than breaking internal SC rules to convict and kick out the nation’s chief magistrate.

If Sereno survives the trial, she will emerge stronger – and a potential threat to administration forces that moved to bring her down.