sneaky snaky snarky supremes

surely, the ouster of cj sereno by fellow supremes who hate her is not good for country.  legal circles are aghast.  too many laws  defied, broken, re-interpreted.  it is all so destabilizing.  surely there is some other way of dealing with the problem.  surely a senate impeachment trial is the wiser option, let the chips fall where they may.

the original sin was pNoy’s, appointing one so young and so junior.  ang daming nilampasan, in-overtake.  kumbaga sa traffic, daig pa ni sereno ang naka-wangwang, tabi lahat ng nakapilang senior associate justices na mga next-in-line for the cj post.  at least in cj corona’s case, isa lang ang nilakdawan, ibig sabihin tipong senior na rin, may karapatan na rin si corona, besides being president gloria’s former chief of staff, or something like that.

anyway.  the original sin was pNoy’s, the mortal sin was sereno’s, for accepting the appointment.  surely she knew that she would be met with hostility, but perhaps she believed that mar roxas would succeed pNoy and then maybe leni would succeed mar, soon enough the hostile ones would have retired and LP-friendly ones appointed, and then it would all be a breeze to the end of her term.

but mar lost.  ka-DDS na ang majority supremes.  and duterte has spoken: sereno must go.  and so the house of reps got moving and built a case with the help of some five supremes, no less, and the senate has been waiting.  BUT BUT BUT what happened nga ba?

the cardinal sin was solgen calida’s.  why did he have to butt in with the quo warranto?  mahina kasi ang kaso ng house of reps?  tama ba si senator ping lacson?

PING LACSON @iampinglacson 6 hours
Ang biggest ‘winners’ sa SC decision ay ang mga abogadong pulpol na handa sanang magkalat na katangahan sa impeachment trials na hindi na mangyayari dahil malamang hindi na ipadala ng House ang Articles of Impeachment sa Senado.
11 May 2018
580 Retweets 1.4K Likes

more seriously, senate president koko pimentel is calling for the RULE OF LAW.

The Supreme Court is supreme in a lot of things but not in everything. In impeachment matters the Supreme  Court is not supreme, because the Senate is the one and only impeachment court. The Chief Justice an “impeachable official” who can be removed only after impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.  The reputation and esteem of this present Supreme Court will now rise or fall on the basis of the soundness or unsoundness of the this controversial decision upholding a very unusual remedy to oust a sitting Chief Justice.  Let us all uphold the RULE OF LAW. The people must be given time to reiview this decision.  And the Supreme Court itself must also take the time to review its own decision.  If the supreme court is not supreme in everything then it is also not infallible in everything.  The respondent Chief Justice must be given the opportunity to file a Motion for Reconsideration.  God bless our beloved country.

if sereno is not impeached by the senate, the supremes, of course, will be no less hostile, the situation no less untenable.  sereno may have to exit the scene anyway, to keep her sanity.  but let her cross that bridge when / if she gets there.

meanwhile, here’s praying that the supremes (even just one or two? three?) graciously change their minds about the quo warranto, and soon.  if only to shut sereno up, LOL.  her media blitz is quite effective, the message quite arresting, even exciting, particularly the call for a national conversation (!) on everything that’s wrong with filipino society, before it’s too late.

the lady is hitting the ground running.  maybe there’s hope.

Comments

  2. Batang Genyong ala Eh

    Was the quo warranto decision by the SC a legal procedure or political exercise? If legal, the associate justices have the right to assert their opinion and for the petition to be enforced it must passed the “rule of the majority” and since the rule of law was exercised thru democratic processes, therefore such petition has the force of legal and political decision inherently provided by our current Constitution. Therefore, such decision can be honored as method of impeachment by the congress , the political arm of our Constitution. My 5 %cent worth of opinion.

    May 12, 2018 at 10:38 am
    Reply
  17. angela

    BOO CHANCO: “i am not even going to start trying to understand the legal nuances of quo warranto because it is easy to get two sets of lawyers argue opposite sides of the question intelligently. i will react to the SC Sereno decision solely on the basis of whether justice was served. This is so basic even ordinary people can understand it. How can 6 justices so openly speak against Sereno with so much passion and then turn around and pretend they can judge her case objectively. Does our system of justice allow an accuser to become judge as well? They should have kept their mouths shut but they felt so negatively about Sereno their emotions couldn’t let them hold their tongues. Having so spoken openly to express extreme personal bias against Sereno, they should have inhibited themselves. The quo warranto decision couldn’t have been valid because six of the justices ignored a basic principle that the defendant must have a fair chance of getting fair judgment. If Sereno’s group focused more on this issue, more people will understand why she had been treated unfairly. Seek a reconsideration on this point and the situation will be so clear anyone with a sense of justice would know how to call it.

    Here is a column I wrote a month ago on that precise point.

    KANGAROO COURT
    https://www.philstar.com/business/2018/04/16/1806220/kangaroo-court

    May 14, 2018 at 5:11 pm
    Reply

Comment