[OPINION] The perils of quo

warranto against Sereno

If history indeed is the final and fair judge, those who vote
against the quo warranto petition will be judged by future
generations as people who put institution and country above
themselves

Everyone who has not been living under a rock is aware by

now that all is not well in the highest court of the land.

For every momentous event in this country, from coup

attempts to crimes of plunder, all a reasonably connected
person has to do is sit around coffee shops where other
reasonably connected people also gather.

So here’s what is in the grapevine on the matter of the quo

warranto petition against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno:
several justices may vote to grant it.

Here is what is not a rumor but clear fact: many legal

luminaries, including former justices of the Supreme Court,
law school deans, and other lawyers' groups believe that the
granting of the quo warranto is destructive of the judiciary.
Large sections of the population are against it and will be
made more fearful if it is granted.

History and tradition

Let’s step back a few decades. There had been a long-standing
and hallowed tradition in the Supreme Court of seniority.

The tradition of seniority for all its dangers and imperfections

kept the intramurals among justices in check. If an associate
justice waited, he or she would eventually become Chief
Justice, or see a new chief justice whose style of governance
he or she could accept.

Indeed a gauge the quality of the nation’s political health is

when this tradition is upheld or breached.

During the Japanese Occupation of the Philippines (1942-

1945), Jose Yulo was appointed Chief Justice instead of
Manuel Moran who was the most senior associate justice of
the Supreme Court before the Japanese occupation.

On the other hand, presidents from Manuel Roxas to Diosdado

Macapagal honored the tradition by appointing the senior
associate justice as the next chief justice.

The trouble really began when Ferdinand Marcos bypassed

Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee twice. I was a young
adult during those years and very politically engaged. Many
citizens perceived the reason for that as Justice Teehankee
voting against the 1973 Marcos Constitution. Realpolitik would
tell us that every president has tried to influence the courts.
But the brazen attempt that has now normalized the
politicization of the judiciary can be traced to the time of the
Marcos dictatorship.

Thus, in appointing Justice Teehankee as Chief Justice, then

president Corazon Aquino reverted to tradition. And, hopefully,
to a less politicized and fragmented court.

But this tradition has been lost.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo breached the tradition once

more when she appointed Renato Corona chief justice in 2010,
by-passing Justice Antonio Carpio, who was the most senior
associate justice. Subsequently, Renato Corona was
impeached and he was taken out of office in 2012.

The most radical break from this tradition was when former
president Benigno Simeon Aquino III appointed Ma. Lourdes
Sereno as chief justice to take the place of Renato Corona.
She is the first woman chief justice but also served only two
years as associate justice before taking the helm.
Nadir

Lawyer friends tell me this history is important in

understanding why the Court has been brought to its current
nadir.

Yes, I use the term nadir. The quarrels among the justices that
has come out full blown in the impeachment hearings and in
the media has, in my mind, significantly eroded the quiet
gravitas that we have expected from the justices of the
Supreme Court.

What is more, the Supreme Court, in granting the petition for

quo warranto, is engaging in a self-destructive doctrinal
adventure.

This is because the tradition of leadership and leadership

change has been lost. Nothing has replaced it that could keep
the disagreements from boiling over.

President Rodrigo Duterte is not the first president to try to

intimidate the Court and its chief because he disagrees with
her. CJ Sereno is the first justice whose vulnerabilities are
exposed to the public because justices see no way out of their
disagreements. With her early appointment and expectations
of decades of leadership, frustrations and differences with the
Chief Justice can no longer be resolved by waiting her out.

Indeed, the 5 justices rumored to be voting to remove CJ

Sereno through a quo warranto petition are retiring soon.

Institution above self

Enlightened citizens are well aware of how the past and

current political dynamics have led to this moment. Yet I
cannot understand the willingness of some justices to damage
the institution even further by granting the quo warranto. It
shows that some of the members of the Court are ready to let
their anger at the current Chief Justice take precedence over
the need to preserve the judiciary.

How can the leaders of one of the 3 most important

governmental institutions allow their personal agendas, no
matter how justified, take precedence over the well-,being of
the institution they have sworn to preserve and have served
for most of their lives? How can a group of luminaries who are
supposed to be thinking of their legacies leave a judiciary with
its future under threat?
Take a look at where we are, please. A solicitor general, acting
on the orders of a reckless president, has filed a petition to
remove a Supreme Court Justice by means other than what is
guaranteed by the Constitution. The grounds for the petition
are controversial and even the process of its filing remain
controversial.

If this petition is granted then it becomes doctrine. Then, no

judge nor justice will ever be secure from executive or
legislative overreach. And what is to stop one judge from filing
a quo warranto against another? Without security nor
collegiality the judiciary will be at risk to internal squabbling
and external assault.

History as judge

We know full well that political brawling and infighting mark

both the executive and legislative branches of government.
That is their nature. But careful thought and a somber maturity
is what is expected of the judiciary in a liberal democracy.

Only the naive would believe that political dynamics do not

beset the judiciary. But only the fool would accept that
justices resolve this by open wars and destructive maneuvers.
For all its faults, the Philippine Supreme Court and the
judiciary it leads has managed to do right by its people many
times over. It is in those moments, rather than when it gives in
to political intimidation or personal considerations, that it
builds the people’s trust in their courts and in their
government.

For me, it is this slow and incremental building of institutions

that is the work of generations. It is the painstaking work of
those who invest in a future. It is the work of building a free
and democratic country. I believe that we have come to one of
those historical moments when a few must choose whether
our democracy remains on its fitful road to maturity or
whether it was, after all, a failed dream.

There are indeed moments in a country’s history where it

remains in the hands of a few to prevent its descent into
misrule and set it back on the path of righteousness.

I plead with the justices of the Supreme Court to rise above

their current factionalism, sacrifice whatever personal
vindication they may intend, and deny the quo warranto
petition.
They may not have the satisfaction of ending a leadership they
disagree with. But they will have the satisfaction of calming a
weary and divided nation. They may not feel any personal
validation at the moment they do this, but they will instead
take comfort in being validated by many of us today.

If history indeed is the final and fair judge, those who vote
against the quo warranto petition will be judged by future
generations as people who put institution and country above
themselves.