Tonyo Cruz By Tonyo Cruz   There are still solutions to the problem caused by unconstitutional ouster of the chief justice, but it would take tremendous efforts from the public who are making their dissent known. The vote of 8-6 may still be overturned if and when even one of the eight justices changes his/her mind in view of the strong constitutional arguments against Quo Warranto, and other arguments to be presented by the chief justice and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. A vote of 7-7 would automatically dismiss the case. We must continue to condemn the six justices who have already spoken, testified and presented evidence against the chief justice either in the House and elsewhere. They have acted as complainants, witnesses and prosecutors against the chief justice — they should inhibit and recuse their biased selves from the appeals process. Had the Biased 6 properly inhibited from voting, the vote would have been 6-2 . These days are important, because we need to show that a vocal citizenry dissents with the chief justice’s ouster. Today’s protests led by the National Union of People’s Lawyers would hopefully help send that important signal to the magistrates. More mass actions are set for this week as called by the university-based Youth Act Now Against Tyranny alliance. The Coalition for Justice is going to the Senate where a growing number of senators are rediscovering their voices. Senate President Pimentel, Senate President Pro-tempore Recto, and Senators Gatchalian and Ejercito have each issued statements asserting the role of the Senate as the sole body tasked with putting to trial an impeachable official impeached by the House of Representatives. It is possible that these senators from the administration side could form a majority with the opposition senators to pass a resolution challenging the Supreme Court to reconsider and set aside the illegal Quo Warranto, and to respect the constitutional process of impeachment. More than a hundred law deans and professors have stood up for the impeachment process as the only way to charge, put to trial, and remove impeachable officials. They stand behind the constitutional mandates of the House to impeach, and of the Senate to be the impeachment trial court. The fabrications of the Duterte government regarding Quo Warranto are orphaned of any constitutional basis. It is tragic that the tyranny of the Duterte regime found allies in the vindictiveness of several justices of the Supreme Court. Their combination is poisonous to the constitutional order, and makes a terrible mess of the powers granted by the people to separate agencies of government under the Constitution. But enough of the legal arguments. The repercussions of Maria Lourdes Sereno would be long-lasting and terrible. The court has been called the last bulwark of democracy and justice. It is the branch of government tasked with interpreting the law, and in assigning the proper places of the Executive and Legislative branches. It is the final arbiter of people’s personal and political disputes, sometimes about life and death. Sereno has repeatedly pointed out that this is bigger than herself, which is totally correct. What confidence does the Supreme Court give the public when it decided to brazenly go against the Constitution, enact a new law by themselves, and decapitate the judiciary as demanded by the President? If our highest court cannot obey the transparent clear rule set by the Constitution and affirmed by its earlier rulings regarding impeachment, what other abominations would it be capable of committing in the many cases filed against a tyrannical president and a subservient Congress? Would judges in the lower courts now be emboldened to set aside impartiality in favor of a mix of personal caprice and legal shortcuts by the regime, because that’s what’s clear in the decision and the concurring opinions on Sereno? Consider Nanay Nanette and the many other mothers whose sons were killed in Duterte’s brutal drug war. Or Sister Patricia Fox NDS, whose permit to work as a foreign missionary has been trashed the whimsical order of the president. Or Senator Leila de Lima, Rafael Baylosis, Maoj Maga, and others hailed on trumped-up charges. Or the people of Boracay and Aklan whose rights have been curtailed. Add to these the many civil and criminal cases where either the respondents or petitioners look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court, for impartial rulings without the undue influence of either the Executive, the Legislature, or other powerful vested interests. I don’t know how the system would fix the problem, considering how dysfunctional it has been. Those who say citizens must not protest or rebel, and instead stay within the fold of the Law, now have an obligation to explain why we must continue to do so. Or show the way forward. Be that as it may, this terrible episode strengthens the case of those pursuing radical change. In other words: If the separate branches and agencies of government under the system cannot make things work in accordance with the Constitution and, worse, violate the same, they should not begrudge the public’s right not only to be furious but also to look at revolutionary alternatives. The task in front of us is clear. The regime has stabbed the heart of judicial independence and the avowed epicenter of the Rule of Law. The chief justice can and must help expand and mobilize the broadest united front to defend democracy against a rampaging despotism. The idea of impartial justice and independent courts is at stake, and it is an idea that Filipinos are ready to fight for, as those before us did.