What Serenos "ouster" means for all of us
Reading through the Supreme Court Decision regarding the quo warranto petition filed against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno leads me to think not in terms of the staid and dumb "good vs evil" and "tyranny vs. democracy"dichotomies being peddled by certain elements of the Manila media sympathetic to her.
To my mind these are all falsehoods that mislead us to drinking in Sereno`s political theatrics, which, at any rate, poorly played. She overacts to further politicize what is actually an administrative case against an obviously errant public servant.
That her trust and net satisfaction ratings have dipped to their lowest says a lot about her and her theatrics.
Quo warranto cases are within the Supreme Courts jurisdiction, and yes, as my lawyer friends opine, they should also cover the Chief Justice. Perhaps even more so.
I beg to disagree with many who try to "stand with the chief justice" by pushing the belief that she should already be beyond scrutiny since the one year limitation for raising such issues lapsed long after her rather controversial appointment as chief magistrate- a PNOY classmate and a junior justice, overtaking many others.
At this point, cloaking her against scrutiny by asserting a time bar to limit such inquiry on her mistakes is not fair to the many state employees who may have been dismissed or censured for the same offenses. Defending her shows that substantive justice will not be meted out on account of a technicality.
The biggest question nagging many of us is why she tried her darndest to play this drama out. Why didn`t she quit before the truth came out. Did she believe she can outfox the facts surrounding her wrongdoing?
Rather, it pushes me to look at the reality that by engaging the political establishment to protect her interests, she only politicized her position, lending it to the political opposition that sees her as some sort of martyr.
The problem with that equation is that she`s no saint. The very core of the quo warranto complaint are not slight lapses, they speak of her integrity. Non submission of SALNS is a serious offense that has gotten many government employees fired. Should her case be any different?
The high drama of this whole episode worries me. She played politics to try to keep her position.
In case she escaped being ousted, she could very well be indebted to certain people within current government that protected her interests.That being the case, will major cases involving serious wringdoing by these people be played a softly by her?
That said, will she play politics with her decisions?
As this issue is finally resolved, we can rest with the thought that the most politicized and political chief justice has left the bench.