SC ponente: Even President, VP can be removed via quo warranto
Published May 12, 2018 06:45 am
|
Updated May 12, 2018 06:45 am
By Jeffrey Damicog
In ruling to oust Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the majority who voted against her reminded that the President and Vice President can be removed through quo warranto and not only by impeachment.
Hon. Noel G. Tijam - Associate Justice of Supreme Court of the Philippines (Kevin Tristan Espiritu / MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
“Even the PET (Presidential Electoral Tribunal) Rules expressly provide for the remedy of either an election protest or a petition for quo warranto to question the eligibility of the President and the Vice-President, both of whom are impeachable officers,” read the 153-page SC en banc decision penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam.
“In fact, this would not be the first time the Court shall take cognizance of a quo warranto petition against an impeachable officer,” he reminded.
He recalled that back in 2001 former President and current Manila Mayor Joseph (Erap)Ejercito Estrada filed a quo warranto case before the SC questioning the presidency of the President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo who took over following his ouster from office.
“By entertaining the quo warranto petition, the Court, in fact, determined whether then President Estrada had put an end to his official status by his alleged act of resignation,” Tijam said.
Last Friday, the SC voted 8-6 to grant the quo warranto petition of Solicitor General Jose Calida who sought to void the 2012 appointment of Maria Lourdes Sereno as chief justice since she failed to submit her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) before the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) which set the requirement for applicants. The JBC is the one tasked to screen applicants seeking positions within the judiciary, including the seat of chief justice.
Sereno had insisted that as an impeachable officer she can only be removed through impeachment, in accordance with the Constitution.
Tijam pointed out that “the language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not foreclose a quo warranto action against impeachable officers.”
Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution provides: “The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.”
“We hold, therefore, that by its tenor, Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution allows the institution of a quo warranto action against an impeachable officer. After all, a quo warranto petition is predicated on grounds distinct from those of impeachment. The former questions the validity of a public officer's appointment while the latter indicts him for the so-called impeachable offenses without questioning his title to the office he holds,” he indicated.
Under the allegations against Sereno, she failed to file before the JBC in 2012 her SALNs that she was supposed to have filed when she was still a law professor at the University of the Philippines (UP) from 1985 to 2006.
“Respondent could have easily dispelled doubts as to the filing or non-filing of the unaccounted SALNs by presenting them before the Court. Yet, respondent opted to withhold such information or such evidence, if at all, for no clear reason,” Tijam pointed out.
“Respondent firmly latches on to her allegation that she filed her SALN s, only that she has no records of the same. It is, however, too shallow and impetuous for this Court to accept such excuse and disregard the overwhelming evidence to the contrary,” he added.
The magistrate pointed out that Section 17, Article Xi of the Constitution requires: “A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth.”
With this, Tijam said, “one who fails to file his or her SALN violates the Constitution and the laws, and one who violates the Constitution and the laws cannot rightfully claim to be a person of integrity as such equation is theoretically and practically antithetical.”
“Her inclusion in the shortlist of candidates for the position of Chief Justice does not negate, nor supply her with the requisite proof of integrity. She should have been disqualified at the outset,” the magistrate stressed.
Though the JBC eventually decided to do away with the submission of the SALNs in 2012 following requests made by Sereno over alleged difficulty in securing them, Tijam stressed that the Constitution provides that the JBC was created “under the supervision of the Supreme Court.”
“Thus, in interpreting the power of the Court vis-a-vis the power of the JBC, it is consistently held that the Court's supervisory power consists of seeing to it that the JBC complies with its own rules and procedures,” Tijam said.
Sereno had earlier sought the inhibition Tijam and Associate Justices Teresita De Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Samuel Martires, and Diosdado Peralta from participating in the quo warranto case due to their bias against her. The six along with Associate Justices Andres Reyes Jr. and Alexander Gesmundo voted to oust her.
Tijam pointed out that the participation of these magistrates during the impeachment proceedings against Sereno at the House of Representatives should not be taken against them since they were summoned there and have prior consent from the SC en banc.
“Absent strong and compelling evidence establishing actual bias and partiality on the part of the Justices whose recusal was sought, respondent's motions for inhibition must perforce fail. Mere conjectures and speculations cannot justify the inhibition of a Judge or Justice from a judicial matter. The presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role of dispensing justice in accordance with law and evidence, and without fear or favor, should not be abandoned without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary,” said Tijam.
He also said Sereno cannot shield herself through the argument that the prescription period has already lapsed as she cited that the rules on quo warranto provides that a case can only be filed within a year she assumed office.
Tijam said this will not work in her favor since the rules say that “the prescriptive period shall be reckoned either from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, or if such be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of the judicial proceeding for its investigation and punishment.”
Hon. Noel G. Tijam - Associate Justice of Supreme Court of the Philippines (Kevin Tristan Espiritu / MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
“Even the PET (Presidential Electoral Tribunal) Rules expressly provide for the remedy of either an election protest or a petition for quo warranto to question the eligibility of the President and the Vice-President, both of whom are impeachable officers,” read the 153-page SC en banc decision penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam.
“In fact, this would not be the first time the Court shall take cognizance of a quo warranto petition against an impeachable officer,” he reminded.
He recalled that back in 2001 former President and current Manila Mayor Joseph (Erap)Ejercito Estrada filed a quo warranto case before the SC questioning the presidency of the President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo who took over following his ouster from office.
“By entertaining the quo warranto petition, the Court, in fact, determined whether then President Estrada had put an end to his official status by his alleged act of resignation,” Tijam said.
Last Friday, the SC voted 8-6 to grant the quo warranto petition of Solicitor General Jose Calida who sought to void the 2012 appointment of Maria Lourdes Sereno as chief justice since she failed to submit her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) before the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) which set the requirement for applicants. The JBC is the one tasked to screen applicants seeking positions within the judiciary, including the seat of chief justice.
Sereno had insisted that as an impeachable officer she can only be removed through impeachment, in accordance with the Constitution.
Tijam pointed out that “the language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution does not foreclose a quo warranto action against impeachable officers.”
Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution provides: “The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.”
“We hold, therefore, that by its tenor, Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution allows the institution of a quo warranto action against an impeachable officer. After all, a quo warranto petition is predicated on grounds distinct from those of impeachment. The former questions the validity of a public officer's appointment while the latter indicts him for the so-called impeachable offenses without questioning his title to the office he holds,” he indicated.
Under the allegations against Sereno, she failed to file before the JBC in 2012 her SALNs that she was supposed to have filed when she was still a law professor at the University of the Philippines (UP) from 1985 to 2006.
“Respondent could have easily dispelled doubts as to the filing or non-filing of the unaccounted SALNs by presenting them before the Court. Yet, respondent opted to withhold such information or such evidence, if at all, for no clear reason,” Tijam pointed out.
“Respondent firmly latches on to her allegation that she filed her SALN s, only that she has no records of the same. It is, however, too shallow and impetuous for this Court to accept such excuse and disregard the overwhelming evidence to the contrary,” he added.
The magistrate pointed out that Section 17, Article Xi of the Constitution requires: “A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth.”
With this, Tijam said, “one who fails to file his or her SALN violates the Constitution and the laws, and one who violates the Constitution and the laws cannot rightfully claim to be a person of integrity as such equation is theoretically and practically antithetical.”
“Her inclusion in the shortlist of candidates for the position of Chief Justice does not negate, nor supply her with the requisite proof of integrity. She should have been disqualified at the outset,” the magistrate stressed.
Though the JBC eventually decided to do away with the submission of the SALNs in 2012 following requests made by Sereno over alleged difficulty in securing them, Tijam stressed that the Constitution provides that the JBC was created “under the supervision of the Supreme Court.”
“Thus, in interpreting the power of the Court vis-a-vis the power of the JBC, it is consistently held that the Court's supervisory power consists of seeing to it that the JBC complies with its own rules and procedures,” Tijam said.
Sereno had earlier sought the inhibition Tijam and Associate Justices Teresita De Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Samuel Martires, and Diosdado Peralta from participating in the quo warranto case due to their bias against her. The six along with Associate Justices Andres Reyes Jr. and Alexander Gesmundo voted to oust her.
Tijam pointed out that the participation of these magistrates during the impeachment proceedings against Sereno at the House of Representatives should not be taken against them since they were summoned there and have prior consent from the SC en banc.
“Absent strong and compelling evidence establishing actual bias and partiality on the part of the Justices whose recusal was sought, respondent's motions for inhibition must perforce fail. Mere conjectures and speculations cannot justify the inhibition of a Judge or Justice from a judicial matter. The presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role of dispensing justice in accordance with law and evidence, and without fear or favor, should not be abandoned without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary,” said Tijam.
He also said Sereno cannot shield herself through the argument that the prescription period has already lapsed as she cited that the rules on quo warranto provides that a case can only be filed within a year she assumed office.
Tijam said this will not work in her favor since the rules say that “the prescriptive period shall be reckoned either from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, or if such be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of the judicial proceeding for its investigation and punishment.”