Curtain Raiser
In a ruling that feels more like choreography than jurisprudence, the Supreme Court’s handling of Sara Duterte’s impeachment dances between legal nuance and political theater. This article unpacks the delicate footwork behind the decision, where angel twirls on legal pinhead and elephant tiptoes through a constitutional minefield.
The Ruling, the Backlash, and the Spectacle
Have you been following the media coverage of the Supreme Court (SC) ruling on Sara Duterte’s impeachment and its backlash? If so, you might have stumbled into what feels less like a legal proceeding and more like a courtroom-themed drama – complete with robes, rhetoric, and a plot twist worthy of primetime television.
It all began with this ruling:
“The Supreme Court En Banc on July 25, 2025, declared the Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte unconstitutional, noting that it is barred by the one-year rule under Article XI, section 3(5) blah… blah… blah.”
And in no time, the backlash rolled in.
Prominent lawyers and constitutional experts lined up to call foul. The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), which includes Senior Associate Justice Leonen among its alumni, called the ruling “grossly unfair” and “a violation of the Constitution.”
The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) said the SC had “departed from the Constitution.”
Former Chief Justice Panganiban suggested a Status Quo Ante order and oral arguments. Christian Monsod, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, said the SC may need to “correct itself.” And former Associate Justice Carpio? He warned that the SC had crossed into political territory where it had no business being.
At this point, dear ATABAY readers, do you have an iota of an idea what’s happening?
Let me give you a piece of my mind - not as a lawyer (I’m an engineer), but as a writer and a chess player. Let’s connect the dots, get the pieces moving, and figure out what’s going on behind the velvet curtains of our political backstage.
Welcome to the Legal Festival
If you’ve been keeping up with Sara’s impeachment saga, you might feel like you’re watching a political carnival. It is complete with legal acrobatics and a chorus of experts debating whether angels can, in fact, dance on the head of a pin.
Yes, that’s the metaphorical question dominating the discourse: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Because when the conversation becomes so obsessed with hair-splitting technicalities, the real issues start spinning out of sight.
The Spectacle of Legalese
Turn on any news channel or scroll through your feed, and you’ll find legal scholars locked in a technical war of words. They dissect precedents, parse constitutional clauses, and argue over procedural nuances with the precision of watchmakers. It’s impressive, no doubt – but also oddly theatrical.
This isn’t to say that legal rigor is unimportant. But when the debate becomes so granular that it loses sight of the broader implications, one begins to wonder: Is this legal scholarship or interpretive dance?
The Elephant in the Courtroom
While the angels twirl, a rather large elephant tiptoes through the courtroom – one that few seem willing to acknowledge. That elephant? The fact that 12 of the current Supreme Court justices were appointed by former President Duterte, whose daughter, Sara, is at the center of the impeachment controversy.
Now, malice aside, it’s not unreasonable for the public to raise an eyebrow. When a ruling directly affects the political future of the former president’s daughter, and the majority of the justices owe their robes to him, the optics alone are enough to make Lady Justice peek from under her blindfold.
A Fly in the Ointment
Even if we grant the ruling its legal legitimacy, there’s a lingering discomfort – a fly in the ointment, if you will. It’s the sense that something doesn’t quite sit right. That amid all the procedural purity and judicial eloquence, the ruling may be tainted by proximity, by legacy, by quiet loyalties.
It’s not an accusation. It’s a question. And questions - especially uncomfortable ones - are the lifeblood of democracy.
The Chessboard Beneath the Robes
Now, as a chess player, let me shift the metaphor. Behind the scenes, the real game played out.
Sara, the queen on the board, faced a threat. The impeachment was a challenge to her position, a potential disruption to the dynasty’s continuity. And the SC's ruling? A defensive maneuver. A castling move to shield the queen and preserve the king’s legacy.
The knights – legal minions, leapt across media platforms, defending the ruling with elegant logic and selective precedent. The bishops – moral supporters, blessed the decision, urging trust in the institution.
And the pawns? The Filipino people. We moved slowly, one square at a time, asking questions, voicing dissent. But on this board, pawns are expendable. Their outrage is absorbed, their momentum redirected.
Yet pawns hold potential. Reach the other side, and they transform. That’s the latent power of civic awareness.
The Masquerade of Legitimacy
The brilliance of this dual metaphor lies in its deception.
The SC performs justice while playing politics. It speaks in the language of law while moving in the logic of power. It wears robes but holds pieces. It dances while it calculates.
And the audience? We’re caught between awe and suspicion. We want to believe in the sanctity of the stage, but we see the fingerprints on the board.
When the Stage Collapses and the Board Tilts
What happens when the performance falters? When the choreography reveals its strings? When the chessboard tilts and the pieces slide?
Trust erodes.
Not just in one ruling, but in the institution itself. The SC risks becoming not the guardian of justice, but a player in a dynastic match – its moves predictable, its robes threadbare.
And in that moment, the Filipino people must choose: to remain spectators, or to rewrite the script and reset the board.
A Call to Consciousness
The angels may keep dancing. The pieces may keep moving. But the whole nation is awakening.
And if we listen closely – not just to the music, but to the silence between the notes – we may yet reclaim the stage. Or better yet, flip the board.
Content and editing put together in collaboration with Bing Microsoft AI-powered Co-pilot and Grammarly
Head image created by ChatGPT, Design by Canva
Still photos courtesy of The Metro Lawyer, ChaGPT Image Creator. NightCafe, Dreamstime.com, Adobe Stock
No comments:
Post a Comment