NO matter how the Supreme Court would deny it, the ultimate question is who fed Senior Associate Justice Mario Victor Leonen the wrong information to come out with a patently erroneous decision based on factual errors?
What is escaping discussion and accountability is the person or persons who fed Leonen the wrong information that broadcast giant ABS-CBN reported no plenary session was held on the House of Representatives initiated the Articles of Impeachment against Misfit Sara. ABS-CBN has come out with an official statement that it reported the plenary session.
That person, or group of persons, must account for what he has or they have done. It put Leonen and the entire Supreme Court under adverse public scrutiny, as the wrong information resulted in a wrong decision that nobody among the magistrates could defend. That single wrong information was the basis for Leonen and the 12 other SC justices to rule that the complaint was unconstitutional.
How can the SC save face? Now that the whole universe knows, the SC cannot continue to use this piece of wrong information and wrong news as its basis in responding to the motions for reconsideration (MRs) filed separately by the House of Representatives and two other groups.
But what can it use now as its new basis? Definitely not another news item.
The SC has never been known to use a news report as a sole basis for any of its decisions. This is the reason it calls for sessions for oral arguments to establish facts. Although the High Court is not a trier of facts, those oral arguments are its way to ascertain facts. It will be a tough challenge for the SC when it rules on the MRs.
If the SC wants to clean up its name – somehow, somewhere, and sometime, it must conduct an investigation and find out who did it. Was it done with malice? If with malice, how high and how wide was its net? If out of incompetence, which is unlikely, it still could be used as an exit – with the bad actor being thrown under the bus to save the whole court as an institution in a way.
The SC must act fast to reassure the public that it has excised out a rogue employee or group of employees.
Beyond the SC, the next question is: who was the mastermind if there indeed was evil intent? Nobody benefited from the decision but Misfit Sara – and, of course, her allies in the Senate, who are salivating already this early for the 2028 presidential elections.
In sum, the SC must tell the public it is doing something against this person or group of persons. Absent this, its image would remain as bad as it is and its future decisions would always be viewed with suspicion.
The Supreme Court must save itself.
