PEDDLING FALLACY

By Fr Ranhillo Calangan Aquino
Dean,
San Beda Graduate School of Law.

It is unpardonable, at least for me, that people who know and who should know better lend themselves to the propagation of fallacy and misinformation.

Fallacy No. 1:
Entertaining the petition for a writ of quo warranto against the Chief Justice is an affront to the Senate.

Refutation:
Article VIII of the Constitution vests the Supreme Court with jurisdiction over petitions for writs of quo warranto. The Court is therefore merely exercising its jurisdiction. And nowhere does Article VIII provide "except against the Chief Justice".

Fallacy No. 2:
An adverse judgment against the Chief Justice in the quo warranto case would be an attack on the judiciary and would set a bad precedent.

Refutation:
First, the Chief Justice IS NOT the judiciary. Second, then the JBC ought to do a better job and see that only truly qualified candidates are nominated.

Fallacy No. 3
The petition for quo warrato is groundless and baseless and should be dismissed.

Refutation:
That is for the Court to decide. That is a matter sub judice and under the Rules of Court, such matters should not be publicly debated, much less should public opinion be fostered either for the grant of the petition or against it.

Fallacy No. 4
Quo warranto is an unconstitutional short cut. Impeachment is the only way to remove a Chief Justice.

Refutation:
Impeachment is ONE way of ousting impeachable officials. But when the appointments or elections of impeachable officials are assailed, the proper action is precisely quo warranto. What is provided for by the Constitution as a power of the Supreme Court cannot be unconstitutional.

Question:
Should the petition prosper or not?

Answer:
That is for NONE of us to decide except the Supreme Court, on the merits.