Tit(o) for Tat

There was once a senator of the Republic of the Philippines who was extremely dissatisfied with a ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) in a celebrated case. Unable to contain his disgust, he caused to be published in The Manila Times and other nationwide news organizations his strong opinion on the case.

He said the SC grievously erred in its ponencia; that the majority of the magistrates were incompetent and narrow-minded; that the SC was a danger to democracy and should be reorganized; that he would spearhead a constitutional amendment to change the membership of the High Court; and that the present SC justices were a far cry from those of yore, hinting at a hidden agenda of some.

That senator’s name was Vicente Sotto. Sound familiar? But no, it was not the comedian we have in the Senate today, but his grandfather — who was a lawyer, to boot — who was in the Upper Chamber in the 1940s. Yet reading up on that case (In Re: Sotto, 21 January 1949) gives one an eerie sense of déjà vu.

In his defense, Sotto pleaded good faith and the constitutional guarantees of free speech and the press. Nonetheless, the SC found that his statements went beyond legitimate criticism and, for his contumely, fined him a thousand pesos.

That senator’s third iteration seems not to have learned from his predecessor’s mistake. Because here he is, raining fire and brimstone upon the SC for what he perceives to be grave errors in its decisions in the Duterte impeachment case.

What is uncanny is that he basically echoed the same sentiments as his grandad. Either his “legal luminary” friends did not bring his attention to that case, or such vile temper runs in the family when they don’t get their way. Or perhaps he wants to do the same thing, expecting a different result. Which is Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity.

Well, he was asking for it. A petition to cite him for indirect contempt — for demeaning the SC, casting unwarranted aspersions on the ponente of the decision, bullying the SC justices by ranting that they have amended the Constitution and raving that he would endeavor a constitutional change to rectify the SC’s errors, which he said even a law freshman wouldn’t make — is now pending against him, filed by lawyers Jing Paras, Jimmy Bondoc, Manny Luna and Harold Respicio, as well as beauteous political commentator Cathy Binag.

Let’s not forget yours truly, the perennial pain in the ass of public figures vituperative to the SC. This is in default of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which is supposed to lead in the defense of the courts, but has lately turned into a spineless organization more engrossed in politicking and organizing inane activities no member really cares much for.

Unfortunately for Sotto III, the law on contempt in 1941 has basically remained unchanged in the present. Having maligned the SC, it must now defend its dignity by giving Tito his tit for tat for his arrogant and offensive behavior, aggravated by the fact that, as the head of one of the chambers of the Three Great Branches of government, he should have known better than to disparage his co-equals.