“Did Pangilinan think that Aquino’s appointment of the unqualified Sereno, who would have served at the High Court for over 20 years, help in strengthening the rule of law?

Recently appointed Chief Justice (CJ) Teresita de Castro rightfully deserves the title of the “First Woman Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice of the Philippines.”

This is logical and deserved, because the ousted woman justice, Lourdes Sereno, was never qualified for the job, which is why she was rightfully ousted by the High Court through a quo warranto plea and not through an impeachment process.

It is this constitutional process that the anti-Duterte pro-Sereno opposition members in the House of Representatives refuse to acknowledge, going as far as filing an impeachment case against at least six SC associate justices who had voted to oust Sereno, a complaint they know will go nowhere but the garbage bin since they have already admitted that the numbers won’t be enough to even get to first base.

But there still went the same opposition groups, claiming that the appointment of De Castro by President Duterte is her reward for getting Sereno ousted, refusing to admit that the President, unlike their yellow president, Noynoy Aquino, made the right choice based on seniority apart from De Castro being highly qualified for the top CJ seat in the High Court.

Yellow party president Sen. Francis Pangilinan quickly questioned the appointment of De Castro, saying she can only serve at the SC until this 8 October when she reaches the mandatory retirement age of 70 for justices.

“Appointment of endo CJ does not help in the strengthening of the rule of law,” Pangilinan said.

Really? Did Pangilinan think that Aquino’s appointment of the unqualified Sereno, who would have served at the High Court for over 20 years, help in strengthening the rule of law?

But he insists: “Why appoint someone who will only sit as Chief Justice for less than two months? What public purpose does it serve? What public value does it create?” The appointment of De Castro “leaves much to be desired,” he added.

Pangilinan is a lawyer but he appears to have a distorted view of the way the High Court is supposed to arrive at decisions as a collegial body which means De Castro, even if she is the CJ and only for over a month has one vote, just as all the other 14 justices have one vote each. If Pangilinan talks about the weakening of the rule of law, how does this rule of law get weakened merely because of De Castro’s ascension to the top post in the SC? The rule of law can be weakened through the administrative job of a CJ? Because that is what the post entails—administration.

Decisions are never made by the Chief Magistrate alone and well does Pangilinan know this. How does the weakening of the rule of law come in?

Still, even when the pesky no credibility opposition members of Congress know that they can’t dislodge the appointees of Duterte in the SC, they insist on filing a useless impeachment case against seven justices, accusing them of culpable violation of the Constitution for the majority decision that ousted Sereno for her having lied blatantly over her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth and even fabricating her SALN since she could not account for her missing SALN.

The reason for the impeachment complaint? They claim these seven justices betrayed public trust as they refused to recuse themselves from the Sereno quo warranto case.

Geez! It does look like the nation elected some halfwits in Congress.

Do these freaking yellow congressmen and their allies really believe that it is a betrayal of public trust when the majority of the SC justices vote to oust an ineligible CJ who was appointed by an incompetent yellow president?

Aren’t these impeachment complainants saying that when the decision of the majority is not to their liking, such action translates to a betrayal of public trust? Only pea-brained congressmen can come up with such an argument.

As Solicitor General Jose Calida pointed out, the justices cannot be accused of culpable violation of the Constitution because they (justices) are “merely performing their constitutional duty” when they vote on issues like the quo warranto case based on their interpretation of the Constitution.

“They claim these seven justices betrayed public trust.

“If the opposition legislators’ logic will be followed, then all justices, whose constitutional interpretation differs from them, can be impeached,” Calida said.

“Worst, following also this logic, justices who dissented from the majority view in constitutional cases, can also be impeached. This will reduce impeachment to a mere vengeance mechanism, far from which it is intended for,” he added.

Ah, but that is exactly what these yellows aim for: Vengeance. They never cared for integrity and the rule of law.