A political COVID?
It’s a great fortune of the country to have a solicitor general who has perhaps more resourcefulness than genius to single out the most important cases to attend to serve the republic in his most enigmatic ways. And, in my humble opinion, he is doing it in remarkable, if hideous, aplomb.
No other government lawyer, I have ever known, has the derring-do to initiate the kind of litigations he has so far done. I tremble at the thought that by quo warranto, he rumbled through some proceedings against some high-profiles belonging to two separate government departments. Those personalities were a chief justice whom he disrobed in total disregard of chivalry and a perceived unflappable senator whom he demolished with annoying disrespect.
In all candidness, the ex-chief justice only paid for an administrative faux pas earlier committed by a patron president. The jurist, even if younger upon becoming a member of the highest tribunal, was deemed par en parem with other associates. Yet, the then president appointed the associate as the chief of the collegial body, bypassing more senior ones. The appointment, which I viewed as violating the protocol of seniority, assailed the dignity of men and women with perceived intellectual ascendancy. It was thus not difficult for me to surmise they would get back at the newly-designated primus inter pares. Their vehicle was the quo warranto filed by the solicitor general, although I understand they will likely dispute my observation.
To my recollection, the results of the special civil action were dissimilar. In blitzkrieg proceedings, the chief justice lost handle of the gavel while the senator met an entirely different fate. While the legislator’s amnesty was anchored on an alleged legal infirmity, the judge of an inferior court proved true to his oath, ruling that the legislator’s freedom was not legally flawed.
I imagine that only a handful, including me, believe the quo warranto cases were filed at the behest of the country’s number one citizen. The absolute few and I could also be wrong because the Palace disclaimed giving the marching orders. It followed therefore that only a very few of us felt that injustice ironically befell on the jurist and rejoiced over the lawmaker’s triumph.
A new quo warranto (which I don’t want to call as novel coronavirus) is again the favored course of the solicitor general’s legal action. Initial reportage tells us this case is against a private corporation purportedly for violating corporate laws. Unlike perhaps the cases against the chief justice and the legislator which probably affected only a few citizens, the coronavirus-like case seems to agitate millions across the country. Lawyers and laymen, women and youth, have, since the day the solicitor general filed his action, have been surging forward to indicate their indignation for what he did. Their numbers are multiplying.
My mischievous mind is looking at a different scenario. I think the evolving sentiment of an indignant citizenry will escalate and as they grow in massive numbers, they will become belligerent. In comparison, those who believed the former chief justice and the senator were victims of an oppressive regime only felt rancor in their hearts but were unwilling to demonstrate their discomfiture. I further surmise the solicitor general expects this surge of angry crowds to reach rebellious proportions. Then, invoking the demands of state security, public order and safety against lawlessness, the powers that be, reminiscent of the dark days of martial law, declare a revolutionary government.
I hope this most recent quo warranto case isn’t part of a dirty political plan. Dear Lord, let me be totally wrong.
- Latest
