Who fed Justice Marvic Leonen non-existent news? Is there a rogue lawyer in the Supreme Court? Did the culprit act with malice? Were there accomplices? Are the other magistrates even investigating?
Leonen penned the trashing of VP Sara Duterte’s impeachment last July 25. He misstated that the House of Reps didn’t hold a plenary on Feb. 5. He then misjudged that 215 of 306 congressmen broke the constitutional limit of one impeachment rap per official per year. Twelve colleagues affirmed him.
Leonen’s basis was a Feb. 5 ABS-CBN news bit, which he footnoted. Supposedly, the network reported that no House plenary was held. He was wrong.
The report in fact twice stated the holding of a plenary. A video of the session accompanied it. Another ABS-CBN item, which Leonen also footnoted, likewise mentioned the plenary.
Leonen thus wrote his ponencia from fictitious news. It wasn’t even distorted. It was simply a ghost. But the rest concurred.
All these come to mind when deposed Senate president Chiz Escudero took to the floor on Monday. He blamed congressmen for linking him to the flood works scandal. Supposedly the latter resent his shelving of VP Sara’s trial since February.
VP Sara rooted from the gallery. She raised both hands high as Escudero lambasted their common enemy, resigned speaker Martin Romualdez. She was at the Senate to cheer, not to be tried.
Leonen is ruined. That’s the inference of public statements by three constitutional framers, two former Chief Justices, retired magistrates, law deans and professors.
It’s been two months since the uproar against Leonen’s unanimous but unfounded ruling. The House is seeking reconsideration. So are three civil society groups.
What are Leonen’s options to save face? If he reaffirms a decision based on nothing, he faces further public wrath. It won’t be any better if he reverses himself.
Should Leonen resign as ponente? Should he resign from SC? If so, a new ponente will be one of Rodrigo Duterte’s 11 appointees who voted for Leonen’s baseless ruling.
To date, Leonen hasn’t called for oral arguments. It’s what he should have done in the first place before July 25.
Last Feb. 14, Atty. Catalino Generillo wrote SC to compel the Senate to try VP Sara forthwith. On Feb. 19 VP Sara asked SC to declare her impeachment unconstitutional. No SC action for four months. In late June, the Senate voted 19-4-1 to shelve trial.
Suddenly on July 8 Leonen gave the House two weeks to submit certain documents. The House met the July 21 deadline. Storms cancelled SC’s regular Tuesday en banc on July 22, and the next two days. Meantime, Congress was set to reopen Monday, July 28.
As if racing against time, Leonen and 12 justices held special en banc on Friday, July 25. Amid floods mid-afternoon, they announced their signing of a 97-page ruling.
Aside from citing the non-existent news, they imposed seven new rules for impeachment, which only Congress has authority to do. They also inserted a rider that impeachable officials, like SC justices, are exempt if the complaint is based on collegial discussion.
SC’s reputation has been more than tarnished. What is it doing to redeem itself? Is it scrutinizing whoever fed Leonen to the lions?
Is SC crafting ways to prevent a repeat? Is it doing anything at all?
If the decision stays, can other crimes now be dismissed using non-existent alibis? Wouldn’t Philippine jurisprudence be made impure?
Senior Associate Justice Leonen was appointed by President Noynoy Aquino. Eleven who concurred are Duterte appointees: Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, Justices Paul Hernando, Amy Lazaro-Javier, Henri Inting, Rodil Zalameda, Samuel Gaerlan, Ricardo Rosario, Jhosep Lopez, Japar Dimaampao, Midas Marquez and Antonio Kho Jr.
Also concurring was Bongbong Marcos’ only appointee, Justice Raul Villanueva.
Justice Alfredo Caguioa, an Aquino nominee, inhibited. Justice Filomena Singh, a Duterte nominee, was on leave.
There are more questions but these will have to squeeze news space from the hot issue of fake and faulty flood control projects. Still, the SC impropriety cannot be swept under the rug.