An insignificant take
Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, (now on leave) when addressing an all-women forum the other day, was quoted saying President Duterte could be behind the move to impeach her. She declared she will not resign. That she has been harassed to resign was the crux of her speech. She resisted resignation calls claiming she had done nothing to breach her oath. Malacañang was quick to the draw, the Office of the President denied being the force behind the impeachment.
What is my take on these? My opinion does not really matter. What I will say here may offend some of those in power. They should, however, admit that in the academe where I have been part of, we are taught to say, without fear or favor, what we believe is right. Apropos to this thinking, I believe if we put together the parts of this puzzle, we can likely agree with Sereno that she is the object of a demolition job. This article is not an attempt to prop her up. She does not know me and I owe her no favor.
Let us look back at the impeachment of former president Joseph Estrada. When the complaint against him was tackled by the House of Representatives regarding sufficiency in form and substance, then speaker Manuel Villar just literally banged the gavel to forward the impeachment articles to the Senate. I recall Villar ignored the "Mr. Speaker" call, pronounced in a funny way by a Samar congressman. That act was perceptively fast. Having found the formal and substantive sufficiency of the complaint, the task of the Lower House was done.
The initiation of the impeachment case against Sereno is taking an entirely different course. It is incomprehensible for me to learn the committee of the Lower House (just a committee) is wasting time to find out if the complaint is sufficient in form and in substance. The committee probably spent more time than the combined investigations of Estrada, Gloria Arroyo, and chief justice Renato Corona.
What have we seen in the preliminary investigation of the Sereno impeachment complaint? The hearing is like a full-blown trial. Resource persons were propounded leading questions to make their testimonies jibe with obvious designs. Many were allowed to wander their minds to areas not relevant to the issue. We who saw the proceedings could only shake our heads in disbelief. I surmise those resource persons were summoned to the committee's sessions for the sole objective of embarrassing Sereno. Why?
While watching some of the proceedings I could discern most of the alleged constitutional grounds for impeachment were defensible. It looked to me the complaint was crafted rather without care. The case against Sereno cannot be categorized "open and shut". Any skillful litigation lawyer, basing on constitutional paradigms, could puncture holes in the complaint. But, if propaganda rather than evidence were to be the basis, the integrity of Sereno is already beyond repair. Sereno knows this and her accusers are aware of their uncomfortable predicament. They hope the resilience of Sereno shall reach its breaking point.
That is why, to me, some wise guys thought of this quo warranto proceeding. How can anybody undo what the Judicial and Bar Council, a constitutional office, and the president did almost eight years ago? Nothing. This supposed action is brought to fore only to add weight designed to soften Sereno's combative stance.
- Latest
