Bro, hindi. That wasn't an impeachment hearing yet. Wala pa pong impeachment kontra ke Sereno. Saka in-explain yun sa decision. Andun yun.
Napakalinaw din dun sa decision kung ano yung sinasabing "impartiality".
Kung ipagpipilitang mag-inhibit yung 8 kasi "impartial" sila, hindi ba it's but fair, equitable and just na mag-inhibit din yung 6 kasi "impartial" din sila? Bakit yung against lang ang panggigigilan natin, hindi yung mga for?
Let's say it should be equal. sige mag inhibit yun 8, mag inhibit din yun 6. In the end, there should not have been a quo warranto hearing at all. It has already lapsed the 1 year period diba?
Bakit hindi sila nag initiate nyan before?
For all their talks about Sereno breaking internal SC rules, here they are breaking their own rules.
"Nothing contained in this Rule shall be construed to authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his ouster from office unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose."