Judicial environmental pronouncements

The internet says that the word environment should refer to the “surroundings in which people, animals, and plants live.” Environment influences the way a person acts. Culture, education, social relationships, and even physical surroundings are such strong environmental factors that play a major role in shaping a person’s cognitive processes, beliefs, and decision-making styles.

If I use these words - environmental factors - to define the actions and declarations of government agencies, is it acceptable to coin the phrase “environmental pronouncements”? If this is not contemptible verbiage, I wish to describe certain decisions of our highest tribunal as “judicial environmental pronouncements”. I coin this phrase with no intention to disrespect the Supreme Court as I only attempt to look for a literary expression descriptive of my view on how members of the court decide such certain cases.

The Ratification Cases, Javellana vs Executive Secretary. First in my mind is this old case. It was in 1973, during the early years of Martial Law, when then President Ferdinand Edralin Marcos convened barangay assemblies for a political purpose. He wanted the constitution drafted by the 1971 constitutional convention submitted for people’s ratification. Javellana and many others went to the Supreme Court arguing that a plebiscite, not the barangay assembly was needed. They cited the constitution and the election laws to govern such plebiscite.

To me the Marcos environment influenced the case. The court delivered a “judicial environmental pronouncement”. Six justices dismissed the Javellana petition. Of the six justices, five of them namely Fred Ruiz Castro, Antonio Barredo, Felix Makasiar, Felix Q Antonio, and Salvador Esguerra were appointed by Marcos. To me, the president was the environmental factor with only Justice QuerubeMakalintal, the sixth who voted against the Javellana petition not being a Marcos appointee.

A chief justice’s removal: Republic v. Sereno. This is the second case in my mind on “judicial environmental pronouncements”. The constitution enumerates the officials of the government who maybe removed from office thru impeachment. One among such officer is a chief justice of the Supreme Court. Sereno was.

In an April 9, 2018, press conference, then President Duterte was quoted telling reporters these words: “I’m putting you on notice that I’m your enemy and you have to be out of the Supreme Court.” Perhaps Duterte thought that the impeachment process was not completely predictable. So, he asked Solicitor General Jose Calida to wave his magical wand. Quo warranto was born. Calida filed it with the Supreme Court.

Duterte was a popular president. His administrative environment was thoroughly overwhelming. It was thus understandable that with such Duterte environmental factor, the Supreme Court could only reprise the Ratification Cases show of 1973. Eight justices ruled that Sereno, their chief justice of many years, was unqualified to be their chief magistrate! Four of them, Justices Samuel Martires, Andres Reyes Jr.,Alexander Gesmundo, and Noel Tijam, were all Duterte appointees, while the other three, were appointed by Gloria Arroyo.

The Sara Duterte-Carpio unconstitutional impeachment. This is my third “judicial environmental pronouncement” case. Sara’s impeachment complaint was first derailed by the senate led by known Duterte ally ChizEscudero. Such derailment was followed by the decision of the Supreme Court ruling that the Vice President Duterte-Carpio’s impeachment was unconstitutional. Learned academicians and some members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission decried the highest court’s decision as wrong. They forgot that the ruling in the Ratification Cases was also constitutionally absurd. Many present day Filipinos, not including me, just accepted the grotesque removal of Sereno as, yes, another “judicial environmental pronouncement.” How else could Sara’s impeachment be decided?