Sol-Gen files quo warranto petition vs Sereno

THE OFFICE of the SolicitorGeneral (OSG) on Monday filed before the Supreme Court (SC) a petition for quo warranto against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno.

This is apart from the impeachment case being built against the Chief Justice at the House of Representatives.

Quo warranto is a “writ or legal action requiring a person to show by what warrant an office or franchise is held, claimed, or exercised” ( Oxford Dictionary).

Solicitor- General Jose C. Calida argued that the two proceedings against Ms. Sereno “run on different tracks.”

“The second track is Quo Warranto. This is the proper remedy to question the validity of Sereno’s appointment. Quo Warranto is recognized as an extraordinary legal remedy sanctioned not only by the Rules of Court, law and jurisprudence but by the Constitution itself whereby the State challenges a person to show by what authority he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise,” he said.

Mr. Calida cited as the constitutional basis of his petition Section 5 (1), Article VIII of the Constitution; Section 7 ( 3), Article VIII; and Section 17, Article XI on Accountability of Public Officers.

Mr. Calida said that, with his petition, “you (Ms. Sereno) will be judged by your peers who know you and the Constitution better.”

“I don’t expect you to appreciate this but believe me, this is an act of kindness to a fellow lawyer,” he said, adding:

“The Office of the Solicitor General will not allow you to undergo the indignity that the late Chief Justice Renato Corona suffered at the hands of politicians who unjustly convicted him. You do not deserve that.”

Mr. Calida also chided Ms. Sereno’s lawyer- spokepersons for being “horribly wrong. A lawyer who has a basic grasp of our Constitution and jurisprudence ought to know that Impeachment and Quo Warranto are two entirely different proceedings with entirely different grounds for filing.”

Mr. Calida’s petition came some two weeks after suspended lawyer Eligio P. Mallari petitioned the OSG to initiate quo warranto proceedings against the Chief Justice.

In their statement, Ms. Sereno’s spokespersons said in part that Mr. Calida’s petition “is devoid of basis, not to mention that the one-year prescriptive period for filing such action has long prescribed pursuant to Section 11 of Rule 66 of the Rules of Court.”

“We wish to reiterate that this latest action by the Solicitor General is part and parcel of the grand plan to harass, malign and humiliate the Chief Justice to force her to resign because her detractors know that the impeachment case, which was built on lies, won’t stand a chance in the Senate,” they also said. —