SC decides tomorrow on Sereno's quo warranto motion
Published Jun 18, 2018 02:32 pm
By Rey Panaligan
The Supreme Court (SC) is set to take up tomorrow morning the motion filed by Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno who sought the reversal of the May 11 decision that ousted her as Chief Justice and head of the judiciary.
(MANILA BULLETIN)
Sources said the justice-in-charge of the case, Justice Noel G. Tijam who wrote the decision which was concurred in by seven other justices, has prepared a draft that would deny the motion for reconsideration.
If Sereno’s motion is denied, the decision becomes final and the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) – the constitutional office that accepts, screens and nominates appointments to the judiciary – will start accepting applications and nominations for the post of Chief Justice.
Under the Constitution, the President has 90 days to fill up the Chief Justice post from the time the vacancy occurred. The replacement would come from the list that would be submitted by the JBC.
Sereno’s motion for reconsideration was originally set for deliberation on June 5. Instead of ruling on the motion, the SC decided to require Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, who filed the quo warranto petition in behalf of the government, to comment on the motion.
In his comment, Calida asked the SC to affirm its May 11 decision.
Sereno, several lawmakers, and even the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which filed a motion for reconsideration in intervention, have insisted that a Chief Justice can be removed from office only by impeachment.
In the May 11 decision, nine justices ruled that quo warranto is the proper remedy to challenge Sereno’s appointment as Chief Justice.
Calida said: “When the SC took cognizance of the quo warranto petition, it was merely exercising the power allocated to it. It was settling a legal controversy. A quo warranto is an action against the usurpation of a public office or position, which is under the SC's jurisdiction. Therefore, the SC correctly ruled that its assumption of jurisdiction over the present action for quo warranto is not violative of separation of powers."
At the same time, Calida said the issue of lack of Sereno’s integrity, which was the main basis of the SC’s decision, is not a political question and the one-year period to file the quo warranto petition does not apply to her.
"Since the present case deals with the eligibility of respondent (Sereno) to hold the highest position in the judiciary, it is one of transcendental importance. It involves public interest. In not strictly applying the statute of limitations, the Court considered that respondent was never forthright concerning her SALNs (Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth) while she was employed at the University of the Philippines as a university professor. She deliberately glossed over the defect in her appointment," he said.
Calida pointed out: “The subject matter of the quo warranto petition before the SC is Sereno’s ineligibility to be appointed Chief Justice. It does not revolve on any impeachable offense that she may have committed. Assuming that the articles of impeachment will be submitted to the Senate, that body is not authorized to resolve the issue of her ineligibility because it is not an impeachable offense.”
Differentiating a quo warranto petition from impeachment, Calida said that in the former no title was vested to her and she remains a de facto public officer, while the latter pertains to removal from office of a qualified public officer.
"It is therefore in a quo warranto proceeding that the subject public officer is considered as having acted in a de facto capacity. This is not true for a public officer facing an impeachment trial. Necessarily, that public officer is considered de jure because the validity of his or her appointment is not in question," he explained.
In her 205-page motion, Sereno said “basic, fundamental and longstanding constitutional and legal rules and principles, and settled judicial precedents were ignored, set aside and reversed by the majority decision to achieve one end—the disqualification and ouster of the Chief Justice.”
She even warned that “the proverbial path to perdition which the majority of this Court has taken, that is paved mainly with the intention of removing the Chief Justice by any means, can lead only to the destruction of judicial independence and the separation of powers.”
She stressed that the majority of the SC justices violated her constitutional right to due process when they ignored evidence that she had filed her SALNs when she was a professor at the University of the Philippines.
She reiterated that Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution mandates that “impeachable officials like the Chief Justice can be removed only by impeachment and not by any other means.”
At the same time, Sereno’s motion pleaded anew for the inhibition of Justices Teresita J. Leonardo de Castro, Diosdao M.Peralta, Francis H. Jardeleza, Tijam, Lucas P. Bersamin and Samuel R. Martires.
“This is essentially a plea to the Honorable Court to do what is right and just…. And the right and just thing to do, as dictated by the respondent’s fundamental right to due process is to disqualify the six Honorable Justices who had lost the impartiality to hear and decide this case,” the motion stated.
In his petition that was granted by the SC, Calida said that "Sereno's repeated failure to file her SALNs and her dishonesty before the JBC are demonstrative of her obstinate refusal to comply with the law and accordingly, her utter lack of integrity."
(MANILA BULLETIN)
Sources said the justice-in-charge of the case, Justice Noel G. Tijam who wrote the decision which was concurred in by seven other justices, has prepared a draft that would deny the motion for reconsideration.
If Sereno’s motion is denied, the decision becomes final and the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) – the constitutional office that accepts, screens and nominates appointments to the judiciary – will start accepting applications and nominations for the post of Chief Justice.
Under the Constitution, the President has 90 days to fill up the Chief Justice post from the time the vacancy occurred. The replacement would come from the list that would be submitted by the JBC.
Sereno’s motion for reconsideration was originally set for deliberation on June 5. Instead of ruling on the motion, the SC decided to require Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, who filed the quo warranto petition in behalf of the government, to comment on the motion.
In his comment, Calida asked the SC to affirm its May 11 decision.
Sereno, several lawmakers, and even the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which filed a motion for reconsideration in intervention, have insisted that a Chief Justice can be removed from office only by impeachment.
In the May 11 decision, nine justices ruled that quo warranto is the proper remedy to challenge Sereno’s appointment as Chief Justice.
Calida said: “When the SC took cognizance of the quo warranto petition, it was merely exercising the power allocated to it. It was settling a legal controversy. A quo warranto is an action against the usurpation of a public office or position, which is under the SC's jurisdiction. Therefore, the SC correctly ruled that its assumption of jurisdiction over the present action for quo warranto is not violative of separation of powers."
At the same time, Calida said the issue of lack of Sereno’s integrity, which was the main basis of the SC’s decision, is not a political question and the one-year period to file the quo warranto petition does not apply to her.
"Since the present case deals with the eligibility of respondent (Sereno) to hold the highest position in the judiciary, it is one of transcendental importance. It involves public interest. In not strictly applying the statute of limitations, the Court considered that respondent was never forthright concerning her SALNs (Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth) while she was employed at the University of the Philippines as a university professor. She deliberately glossed over the defect in her appointment," he said.
Calida pointed out: “The subject matter of the quo warranto petition before the SC is Sereno’s ineligibility to be appointed Chief Justice. It does not revolve on any impeachable offense that she may have committed. Assuming that the articles of impeachment will be submitted to the Senate, that body is not authorized to resolve the issue of her ineligibility because it is not an impeachable offense.”
Differentiating a quo warranto petition from impeachment, Calida said that in the former no title was vested to her and she remains a de facto public officer, while the latter pertains to removal from office of a qualified public officer.
"It is therefore in a quo warranto proceeding that the subject public officer is considered as having acted in a de facto capacity. This is not true for a public officer facing an impeachment trial. Necessarily, that public officer is considered de jure because the validity of his or her appointment is not in question," he explained.
In her 205-page motion, Sereno said “basic, fundamental and longstanding constitutional and legal rules and principles, and settled judicial precedents were ignored, set aside and reversed by the majority decision to achieve one end—the disqualification and ouster of the Chief Justice.”
She even warned that “the proverbial path to perdition which the majority of this Court has taken, that is paved mainly with the intention of removing the Chief Justice by any means, can lead only to the destruction of judicial independence and the separation of powers.”
She stressed that the majority of the SC justices violated her constitutional right to due process when they ignored evidence that she had filed her SALNs when she was a professor at the University of the Philippines.
She reiterated that Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution mandates that “impeachable officials like the Chief Justice can be removed only by impeachment and not by any other means.”
At the same time, Sereno’s motion pleaded anew for the inhibition of Justices Teresita J. Leonardo de Castro, Diosdao M.Peralta, Francis H. Jardeleza, Tijam, Lucas P. Bersamin and Samuel R. Martires.
“This is essentially a plea to the Honorable Court to do what is right and just…. And the right and just thing to do, as dictated by the respondent’s fundamental right to due process is to disqualify the six Honorable Justices who had lost the impartiality to hear and decide this case,” the motion stated.
In his petition that was granted by the SC, Calida said that "Sereno's repeated failure to file her SALNs and her dishonesty before the JBC are demonstrative of her obstinate refusal to comply with the law and accordingly, her utter lack of integrity."