Shaming the shameless

SKETCHES

- ANA MARIE PAMINTUAN

Noting the impact of President Marcos' "mahiya naman kayo" directed at crooks who pocketed flood control funds, some quarters say the call should also be directed at the justices of the Supreme Court.

The SC, according to several top legal experts, has effectively amended constitutional provisions on impeachment.

Human rights lawyers belonging to the Free Legal Assistance Group have described the unanimous ruling as "over-judicializing." Several retired SC justices are urging the high tribunal to revisit its ruling, which was rendered without even the benefit of oral arguments, in a case with such profound impact.

The ruling looked meant not so much to protect Vice President Sara Duterte, but to protect SC justices, who can be removed only by impeachment. A chief justice, after all, was removed following an impeachment trial (while another was removed by envious peers simply through a quo warranto petition). The SC ruling sets precedents absent in the Constitution that make it harder for the magistrates to be impeached by nasty congressmen.

Earlier, the SC had also led the way in promoting opaqueness, making it tough to get hold of public officials' statements of assets, liabilities and net worth — a move that was institutionalized by SC justice-turned-unlamented ombudsman Samuel Martires.

Who will investigate SC justices for grave abuse of discretion?

A framer of the Constitution, Christian Monsod, is now suggesting that the SC justices be investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman for "judicial overreach" and abuse of authority, and that VP Duterte be indicted criminally for graft.

Some members of the House of Representatives have made the same suggestions.

This will depend on who will be chosen as the next ombudsman.