Hate to tell you “I told you so,” but I did tell you so, which is why the nation now has not only a subservient-to-Malacañang Supreme Court (SC) but also a high court petrified of a Congress, because both can easily impeach and convict any SC justice they want — even when there is no impeachable offense committed.
This has all come about because the Malacañang tenant now knows how powerful money and position can be in getting Congress to do his every bidding — including throwing out any justice, especially the Chief Justice, and any impeachable officer holding a constitutional office and convict them despite the absence of an impeachable crime.
It was being preached then by Noynoy and his Yellows, and yes, even some SC justices who were salivating for the chief justice post, that the high bench was nothing but a Gloria Arroyo court, and that with CJ Renato Corona heading the SC, never can the Filipino people expect justice and impartiality in its decisions. This, claimed the hypocrite of the first water Noynoy, was the reason he was out to impeach and convict Corona, to reclaim the SC for the people.
What he really meant was for him to reclaim the Corona-less SC, for his control.
From the time Corona was out, just how did the so-called acting Carpio court rule, if not always favoring the executive, and Noynoy?
Did the SC not flip-flop on the temporary restraining order (TRO) it issued on the freeze in regular wages for bus drivers?
And did not the SC, just two days ago, flip-flop on its ruling that only one member of Congress can be represented in the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)?
But there went the leaders of Congress, insisting that the SC in essence, should amend the JBC proviso, since the framers of the 1987 Constitution made that mistake of coming up with such a single member of Congress, as they forgot that the other provisos were meant for a unicameral legislature and not a bicameral one.
And they reasoned out that if the wordings in the Constitution are to be strictly adhered to, then the JBC’s convening is unconstitutional since the Charter strictly says that it is the chief justice that heads the JBC, and not an acting CJ, nor a junior justice.
In other words, what Congress was really saying is that the SC itself already had  amended the Charter proviso of the JBC to suit its ends, why then deprive the Congress of the same type of amendment to the one Congress member to two as JBC representatives, to also suit the ends of both the Senate and the House of Representatives?
And the servile high court, knowing that it did wrong, had to commit another wrong by allowing the two members of the Senate and the House in the interim to vote, until such time that a CJ has been appointed, and a time when all the SC justices can deliberate on this issue.
Come again? Say again?
If the first ruling stating that there can only be one representative of Congress to the JBC, was decided on by what seven justices and sufficed to have this implemented as “immediately executory,” why is there a need to get the entire  membership to finally rule on it again, by suspending this “immediately executory” condition?
Obviously, the high court was so petrified after that veiled threat from the leaders of Congress who spoke of the possibility of impeaching a president for having appointed an undersecretary as the ex-officio member of the JBC, to take the place of his Justice secretary who had inhibited herself owing to her being a nominee, but which apparently she is no longer one due to her pending disbarment cases.
Put another way, it can be said that the SC justices can also be impeached as they have put in a junior justice to preside over the JBC.
As for the Congress, they have a newfound power: The power to now interpret the law, just as the Malacañang tenant also interprets the law.
All democratic offices and independent institutions have been successfully destroyed.