Affirm decision ousting Sereno, Calida urges SC
Solicitor General Jose C. Calida has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to affirm its May 11 decision that ousted Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno as Chief Justice and head of the judiciary.
Sereno earlier filed a motion before the SC to reconsider its decision.
SC sources said Sereno’s motion, including Calida’s comment, would be taken up and decided by the SC during its full court session on June 19.
If the decision is affirmed, the May 11 ruling 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 from a list that will be submitted by the JBC.
In a comment required by the SC on Sereno’s motion, Calida said the High Court’s ruling on his quo warranto petition did not violate the separation of powers vested in the Constitution.
Sereno, several lawmakers, and even the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) have insisted that a Chief Justice can be removed from office only by impeachment.
Nine SC justices in the May 11 decision ruled that quo warranto is the proper remedy to challenge Sereno’s appointment as Chief Justice. Eight justices voted to oust Sereno.
In his comment, 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.”
Calida also said that 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 (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth) 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 also said in his comment: “A dispassionate examination of the 1987 Constitution will dispel the fallacies of argument mounted against the removal, through a quo warranto proceeding, of impeachable officers. There is no denying that Section 5(1), Article VIII of the Constitution grants the SC original jurisdiction over quo warranto petitions.
“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 on 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.