Supreme Court’s independence at stake

In his column “Let history be the judge,” (5/16/21), retired chief justice Artemio Panganiban wrote about how “harsh” the Supreme Court’s decision (8-6) was against President Duterte’s nemesis, former chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, and how four of the justices who voted to oust her appear to have been rewarded with chief justiceship (entitling them to retirement benefits increased tenfold or more in taxpayer money), namely: Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Diosdado Peralta, and Alexander Gesmundo. Three had previously retired and could no longer enjoy Mr. Duterte’s “token of gratitude.” (The other, an Aquino appointee, Francis Jardeleza, was never in contention, though he probably hated Sereno the most.)

The farce that the Supreme Court has become under the current regime is bound to continue if the very high “approval rating” (90-plus percent) said to be enjoyed by Mr. Duterte holds until the next presidential election in May 2022. In clear circumvention of the prohibition against Mr. Duterte’s reelection, the idea of a Duterte daughter-father or a Bong Go-Rodrigo Duterte tandem (which will ensure Mr. Duterte’s continued

dominance of our country’s rotten politics) is being floated around. The idea may seem ludicrous to right-thinking Filipinos, but it is deadly, serious business given how easily the most idiotic of our electorate, whose number keeps growing across the archipelago, could be fooled by such incredibly stupid “Jokes, lies, and ‘bravado’” (Editorial, 5/15/21) as Mr. Duterte has gained mastery of campaigning on.

The very independence of the Supreme Court is at stake. Under a Duterte dictatorship, any dissenter in that Court can always be subjected to quo warranto for any fabricated reason and without benefit of any impeachment trial, notwithstanding that the Constitution has ordained such process to be the only way to remove a sitting Supreme Court justice. For even in an impeachment trial in a Senate where partisan bias may rear its ugly head, there is always a chance that an impartial judgment could be reached, as in the case of the late chief justice Renato Corona whose own “loyalists” in the Senate could not simply ignore the overwhelming evidence of his corruption.

ROGELIO S. CANDELARIO
[email protected]