The ongoing imbroglio at the Supreme Court, involving Chief Justice Maria Lourdes A. Sereno at the center of proceedings and threats of forcible resignation, is treading on dangerous constitutional grounds as it smacks of lighter shade of the ideas of Nazi crown jurist Carl Schmitt, the real brains behind the rise of Hitler’s fascism and dictatorship.
Burning strategy to power? Carl Schmitt’s devious ideas on the “Unitary Executive” justified the rise of a dictator overruling the Judiciary and the legislature. Much earlier,
Alexander Hamilton, treasurer of the 1776 American Revolution, also had his idea of a Unitary Executive, but his concept was less insidious than Scmitt’s. Hamilton also pushed for a strong Executive, but he wanted the Legislative and Judiciary branches of government to have enough autonomous powers to prevent any one from dominating each other.
Schmitt argued for a constitutional crisis, after which it became easier to justify the Executive ruling over the other branches of government. So the strategy was to create an emergency crisis through the burning of the Reichstag (German Parliament) that justified the issuance of law-substituting dictatorial decrees similar to those of strongman Marcos. Arthur Versluis revealed this in his book on Carl Schmitt, The Inquisition and Totalitarianism.
There LIES the problem. There is more to the story of how Hitler came to power, but what’s surprising is how democratic Germany was undermined after its independent Judiciary was weakened, civil liberties disregarded, and citizens intimidated from independent critical thinking.
And Hitler’s propagandist Joseph Goebbels repeatedly pushed lies even ramming them down people’s throats, thus making him more known notoriously than Schmitt. Even after the “Night of the Long Knives,” when Goebbels and Himmler massacred Hitler’s opponents, it was Schmitt who justified it as the “right to administer peremptory justice,” even citing the Pope’s bloody Inquisition.
The lies capitalized on people’s fear, prejudice, opportunism and need for self-preservation, which were exchanged for obedience and blind conformity. Fascist ways of peddling lies no longer work effectively today with people now empowered with access to Internet knowledge, although still not enjoyed by the hoi polloi.
More insidious ways of peddling lies have emerged, some cloaked in liberalism and the art of deception by using statistics, or the Orwellian idea of deceptive “double talk” or “double thinking” from George Orwell’s 1984 novel about “Big Brother” fascist controlling people’s lives. Sir Robert Giffen (1837-1910) said there are “three kinds of liars—the liars,
outrageous liars, and scientific experts.” He added there are, therefore, also “three types of lies—the usual lies, outrageous lies, and statistics.”
Supreme LIES in court? Regardless of who is telling the truth, whether it is she said, or they said, either party must be twisting the truth on varying issues. Perhaps, Sereno is not a team player as she doesn’t know how to play quid pro quo or the culture of reciprocating favors. She also embarrassed a colleague of plagiarism that has gone public, transgressing traditional cultural norms as it is said in the old tribal ways, insulting one’s dignity was a higher form of crime than murder itself. Worst mistake when she aimed for the top post,
traditionally reserved for seniors.
I won’t go into the merits and demerits of the issues, which were raised in 15 Congressional hearings. She was also accused of “subjudice,” which means she cannot do publicity with her case pending in Court, but subjudice applies only to a jury system. Moreover, because she and her lawyers were not able to defend themselves in Congress, which were aired on media, you cannot deprive her of her constitutional rights and universal rights to free speech and free press in her defense.
Force of Law versus Law of Force. Whatever the truth is, this must be raised legitimately through a Senate impeachment trial as constitutionally mandated to let the force of law prevail. Otherwise, any circumvention of this mandate like a forcible resignation thru the “quo warranto” petition may be misconstrued as a Law of Force, which is the law of the beasts in the jungle.
Even Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez wants to await the quo warranto decision, claiming it will make the impeachment moot and academic. But how the impeachment will end, if pushed through, is not important provided it is credible, because at this stage the means or the Rule of Law is more important than the ends. And making legal shortcuts will only be considered total sophistry and a mockery on the rule of law.
It may boomerang and become another precedent, similar to the statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth case of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona now used to impeach Sereno. It can dangerously polarize people anew, making governance more unwieldy.
Who’s behind anti-Sereno, Duterte or others? If it is Duterte himself, he is taking big risks, and confirms his overtures of flirting with the dangerous consequences of becoming a strongman.
But because he has denied openly being behind the oust Sereno campaign, it is likely there are interest groups with whom Duterte still owes political debts, who are behind what seems to be an orchestrated sustained campaign on all fronts to get her head. As to who they are, let the public elevate levels of discourse so they will learn to make critical analyses themselves.
Court turns into Political circus? Legal luminary and former Sen. Rene Saguisag claims Republic Act 6713 that he coauthored, which requires SALNs, “only slapped a maximum fine of P5,000 if convicted.” It was also “meant more as an administrative, not a criminal offense,” and never as basis for an impeachment.
With the political intramurals in Congress and the Supreme Court, we have disgracefully turned our Supreme Court into a political circus, while the public watch as spectators. When our courts start playing partisanship politics rather than rule of law, then our democracy is imperiled.
E-mail: mikealunan@yahoo.com