SC decides on Sereno’s motion today
The Supreme Court (SC) is set to take up this morning the motion filed by Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno to reverse the May 11 decision that ousted her as Chief Justice and head of the judiciary.
Sources said that the justice-incharge 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.
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.”
Sereno’s motion for reconsideration was originally set for deliberation last 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.