Death by QW
It's quite difficult to predict the magnitude of the impact of what just happened with the stunning (although not entirely unexpected) decision of the Supreme Court in the Quo Warranto case against Chief Justice Meilou Sereno. But impact it does have, and seismic shift it is.
By now everyone knows what "quo warranto" means. Lawyers translate it into "by what right." For a more digestible and flavorful translation, it can be distilled into "what is your right?"
So 14 justices looked into the right of Sereno to stay, and by a vote of 8-6, determined she has no right. Quo Warranto then.
My former mentor and colleague at Sycip Salazar, Justice Ben Caguioa, had this dissenting opinion:
"I view with deep shame and regret this day when the Court has ousted one of its sitting Members upon the prodding of a mere agency of a separate coordinate department. I steadfastly maintain that the members of the Court cannot and should not allow themselves to be used in this manner. No matter how dislikable a member of the Court is, the rules cannot be changed just to get rid of him, or her in this case. The other Members of the Court -the Court en banc- are called upon to grin and bear the unbearable as traveling this prohibited road will be at the expense and to the extreme prejudice of the independence of the entire Judiciary, the independence of the Court's individual members, and the freedom of discourse within the Court. This case marks the time when the Court commits seppuku --without honor."
Caguioa just showed the world the inner workings of the high court. He believes the origin and eventual outcome of the case were rooted in mere dislike. He also views this case as an instance where rules were changed just to get rid of a colleague.
He also predicts this case will impact the future. First, he thinks the independence of the judiciary has been compromised. Because, using this unprecedented case, any pissed-off member of the Executive Branch can just file a Quo Warranto suit against a justice.
This could be a very useful tool when an important case is coming up, and the administration knows the leanings of a particular justice. They know there is that wonderful tool to keep the justice in line. And so, we end up having members of the court who can be cowed into submission.
Second, Caguioa predicts the freedom of discussion and debate in court will be muted, even compromised. If I were a justice, and my view was unpopular, I might develop an aversion to speaking up until voting time. That way I can vote the way I want to without fearing dismissal beforehand.
But that inhibits free discourse, as Caguioa says. I can no longer seek to persuade my fellow justices of my view (or knowing myself, the superiority of my view). And I might not be able to hear equally valid arguments, since everyone is just tight-lipped. And I wouldn't want to disagree so openly with other justices or write dissenting opinions just to show them how stupid they are and how fantastically brilliant I am. That would just make the less intellectually capable justices resent me, and at the right time, they're going to vote to QW me.
The high judges might become so devious that the court would be just like a medieval Macchiavellian plot of whisperings, rumors, insincere smiles and false compliments. Much like a society magazine.
Oh, to be compared to a society magazine.
- Latest
