A briefer on Quo Warranto
THE Supreme Court holds today in Baguio City oral arguments on the Duterte regime’s quo warranto petition against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.
I am publishing here the main points of a briefer on quo warranto as prepared by the Coalition for Justice for the public.
Please read and share this as widely as possible to help raise the awareness and fighting will of our kababayans against yet another brazen act of tyranny. WHAT IS A QUO WARRANTO? A Quo Warranto is a legal proceeding that questions the right of an individual to hold the office he/she occupies. It can be filed only within one year from the cause of ouster.
CAN QUO WARRANTO BE FILED AGAINST IMPEACHABLE OFFICERS SUCH AS CJ SERENO?
No. The Constitution is clear that impeachable Officers can only be removed through impeachment. Art. XI, Section 2 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. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.”
The SC itself has affirmed in several rulings that impeachable officers such as the CJ can only be removed by impeachment.
In Cuenco vs Fernan (A.M. No. 3135 Feb. 17, 1988), the SC held: “There is another reason why the complaint for disbarment here must be dismissed. Members of the SC
must, under Article VIII (7) (1) of the Constitution, be members of the Philippine Bar and may be removed from office only by impeachment (Article XI [2], Constitution).
“To grant a complaint for disbarment of a Member of the SC during the Member’s incumbency, would in effect be to circumvent and hence to ran afoul of the constitutional mandate that Members of the SC may be removed from office only by impeachment for and conviction of certain offenses listed in Article XI (2) of the Constitution.”
In IN RE FIRST INDORSEMENT FROM HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ DATED 16 MARCH 1988 REQUESTING HONORABLE JUSTICE MARCELO B. FERNAN TO COMMENT ON AN ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT (A.M. No. 88-4-5433 April 15, 1988), the SC interpreted Art. XI, Sec. 2 as follows: “Thus, the above provision proscribes removal from office of the aforementioned constitutional officers by any other method; otherwise, to allow a public officer who may be removed solely by impeachment to be charged criminally while holding his office, would be violative of the clear mandate of the fundamental law.”
Hence, a Quo Warranto is an illegal shortcut that is not allowed under the Constitution.
In addition, a Quo Warranto case against CJ Sereno can no longer be filed because the one year deadline to file it has lapsed. More than 5 years have already lapsed since her appointment in 2012.
WHY DID THE OSG FILE THE ILLEGAL QUO WARRANTO?
The House articles of impeachment against CJ Sereno failed the Constitutional test. None of the charges amounts to an impeachable offense.
The impeachment case will further weaken in the Senate where the witnesses coddled by the House will be fully cross-examined.
The Quo Warranto action filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida shows that the Duterte regime aims to remove CJ Sereno by any means.
WHY DOES THE REGIME WANT CJ SERENO REMOVED?
The balance of power in the SC tilts toward the Duterte and GMA appointees. CJ Sereno is outnumbered in major political cases. However, she remains an obstacle to this regime’s larger authoritarian agenda: to rewrite the Constitution and remain in power. Note the following: • The CJ is key to maintaining judicial independence. The CJ sets the agenda, presides at all hearings, controls what questions are to asked, and who can ask them). Her removal and the subsequent appointment of a Duterte CJ would allow for government control of all SC cases.
• The CJ’s removal will also allow the regime to control: The SC as an institution (the CJ is administrative head of the SC), judicial appointments (the CJ is head of the JBC and can bar the inclusion into the shortlist of the ambitious and the inept), the Presidential Electoral Tribunal case between Bongbong Marcos and Vice President Leni Robredo (the CJ chairs the PET).
OUR BATTLE VS. AUTHORITARIAN AGENDA
To push his authoritarian agenda, Rodigo Duterte needs not only a pliant judiciary but an aggressive CJ sworn to push his agenda. Someone completely under his control who will not hesitate to sacrifice judicial independence for political expediency.
Several major charter change issues will come before the SC: how Congress will vote, how ChaCha will be carried out, its outcome if questioned, and any moves possibly made against the opposition.
A Duterte CJ and the DuterteGMA SC can sanitize the regime’s anti-democratic policies. Critical elements in the military who have so far stood against impunity might accept this pretense of legality, merely because it issues from the SC. CJ Sereno’s removal opens the door to oneman rule. It is crucial for democracy that she remain.