THE SUPREME COURT MUST UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW

Members of the Supreme Court.

We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final. These astute words from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson will once again find relevance if the Philippine Supreme Court were to grant the quo warranto petition of Solicitor General Jose Calida to unseat Supreme Court Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno.

While it is beyond doubt – well, until now that is – that the chief justice can only be removed by impeachment under the Constitution, majority of the members of the Supreme Court, who have shown antagonism towards the Chief Justice and seeming fealty to the current administration, may hand down yet another controversial decision that will assert more the finality of the Court rather than its infallibility as interpreter of the law of the land.  

Although it was careful to qualify its order by the phrase “without giving due course to the petition,” the mere fact that the Court entertained Calida’s petition by requiring the Chief Justice to comment rather than dismiss it outright gives one the chills of where this Court can go.

Of course, this will not be the first time that the Court will depart from its traditional role of guardian to the Constitution if ever it decides to skirt the impeachment process and unceremoniously removes the Chief Justice from office. As the final voice on what the law is, the Court has on several occasions handed down decisions that were seen more as serving political ends rather than fidelity to the meaning of the law.

That the Supreme Court ultimately decides along political considerations in political cases is expected, for after all its members are appointed by the highest political entity of the government, the president. Inevitably, the majority that don the same political color declare what the law is consistent with the interests of their political patron.

But to overturn a well-established rule, created by no less than the Constitution, that the officials enumerated under Article XI (2) of the Constitution – which includes members of the Supreme Court – may only be removed from office by impeachment is a flagrant flouting of the rule of law.  Notably, the Supreme Court itself has consistently held in Cuenco v. Fernan, In re Gonzales, Jarque v. Desierto, and Marcoleta v. Borra that the impeachable officials under Article XI (2) can only be removed from office via the impeachment route and this cannot be circumvented by resorting to other means of removal.

In  Cuenco, for example, the disbarment case brought against then Supreme Court Justice Marcelo Fernan (who later became chief justice) was dismissed for being an attempt to remove an impeachable official via another route not allowed by the Constitution. The Court noted that since one can only become a member of the Supreme Court by being an attorney, to disbar a member of the Court would be equivalent to removing him from office which cannot be done because he can only be removed by impeachment.

The members of the Supreme Court must remain steadfast and resist any importuning albeit powerful if the Court were to remain guardian of the Constitution and protector of the rule of law. Giving due course to Calida’s petition is a first step toward the crumbling of the pillars on the edifice of the Court.