NOTHING may come of it, yet there really are stirrings in the House of Representatives over the prospect of another impeachment—of yet another Chief Justice. Five years after the Nationalist People’s Coalition engineered a politically motivated and ultimately unsuccessful impeachment of Chief Justice Hilario Davide, some political operators are mulling the possibility of an impeachment case against Chief Justice Reynato Puno. This time, however, the motivation is both political and pecuniary.

What constitutionalists call “the terrible sword” of impeachment has turned into an extortionist’s knife.

Supreme Court spokesman Midas Marquez says he thinks there is, in fact, such an impeachment attempt. “We have heard of the ouster moves, but we don’t know where they are coming from.”

We can hazard a guess, and a good one. They are coming from parties involved in or associated with the Limkaichong election case, but what were once trial balloons have been lifted even higher on the hot air of political calculation. In this cynical calculus, the Arroyo administration’s best interests lie in removing Puno from the Supreme Court before his scheduled retirement in May 2010.

Why do we say so?

Last month, a certain Louie Biraogo held a news conference to denounce what he called an “irregularity” in Supreme Court decision-making, and pointed the finger directly at Chief Justice Puno.

“My suspicion is the Chief Justice may have a hand in this irregularity,” Biraogo wrote, citing a Supreme Court decision on the Limkaichong case allegedly unpromulgated on Puno’s orders. “These circumstances led me to believe the Chief Justice may have been dishonest in his dealings … and may prejudice the faith of people in the judiciary.”

Altogether, these are extraordinary accusations: they come from an obscure litigant, based on a copy of a draft decision and aimed directly at the head of the judiciary.

Biraogo’s news conference was the beginning of the trial balloon period. It did not take long before political operators saw the political advantages of an impeachment case against a Chief Justice not perceived to be aligned with the administration, and started pumping hot air. A court insider who asked not to be identified told the Inquirer about “loud” talk of a hostile privilege speech that will be delivered on the House floor next week, followed by a filing of a complaint.

Not surprisingly, opposition Sen. Panfilo Lacson sees the Palace hand at work. “This move is very politically motivated and should not be given attention nor supported. To have control of the Supreme Court is what Malacañang wanted from the very beginning,” Lacson said in Filipino.

What quickens congressmen’s interest in the case is the possibility of more political favors. As opposition congressmen have alleged after every dismissal of an impeachment complaint against President Macapagal-Arroyo, Malacañang knows how to look after the welfare of its allies. Those seen supporting the complaint against Puno must have done the math.

Because on the merits of the case, there is, in fact, no case. Biraogo is right that Puno stopped the promulgation of the July 15, 2008 draft decision on the Limkaichong case by Associate Justice Ruben Reyes, despite the signatures of 14 justices. (Reyes retired from the Court last month.) But Biraogo, a litigant in the case, has refused to recognize that Puno did so for excellent legal reasons. A total of nine of the 14 justices had concurred “in the result”—meaning to say, they agreed with the outcome but not with the reasoning. When Chief Justice Puno realized this, he asked the Court to reconsider any action unseating a legislator through a ruling where a majority of justices are unable to agree on the reasoning. This would have resulted in a decision without any “doctrinal value.” The Supreme Court then “unanimously decided to withhold the promulgation of the ponencia of Justice Reyes.” (Newsbreak editor Maritess Vitug details the circumstances of the controversial election case over at the ABS-CBN news website.)

The Court also scheduled oral arguments for August, where glaring factual omissions in the Reyes ponencia surfaced.

Thus, what we have here is a case of the internal procedures of the judiciary actually working in the public’s best interests. But political operators have seized on the resentment of disgruntled parties, to make mischief for the high court’s chief.