TO IMPEACH SERENO, SHE MUST FIRST LEGALLY QUALIFY AS CHIEF JUSTICE

THERE is a wrong impression be removed only through an impeachment proceeding initiated by the House of Representatives and decided upon by the Senate.

One has to be reminded that the President and Vice President, who are impeachable officials, can also be removed by the Supreme Court sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) upon the strength of an electoral contest.

Under the rules of the PET, an elec is in the nature of a quo warranto petition because these are legal proceedings where the right of an individual to hold questioned by a citizen. Rule 66 of the Rules of Court stipulates that an quo warranto petition against “a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully - tion or franchise.”

Hence, while the President and Vice and can be removed only by impeachment, they can also be removed if it is proven that they are unlawfully

winning in an election.

with the Supreme Court and on behalf of the government a quo warranto petition against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on the strength of the allegation that she unlawfully holds such position, considering that she did not qualify for House justice committee revealed that Sereno, who is also currently the subject of an impeachment proceeding, failed to submit her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) for several years which is a requirement imposed by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).

Legal pundits, notably those supporting Sereno, have assailed the move as a breach of the constitutional protection Some members of Congress are also voicing their opposition by alleging that it assaults the House’s sole prerogative to impeach and the Senate’s to convict a sitting Chief Justice. The specter of a constitutional crisis was even raised. To non-lawyers, the logic is simple. Sereno can only become an impeach for the position she holds for which she can only be removed through impeachment. This is the same logic that applies to President Rodrigo Duterte and Vice President Leni Robredo. When their hold on their positions take the mantle of a de jure nature, because they have legally acquired that right through a fair election, then they can indeed be removed only through impeachment.

The grounds for impeachment provided for in the Constitution are clearly enumerated. These are acts while in of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption and other high crimes or betrayal of public trust. Notice that not included in the enumeration is the lack was overlooked during the vetting process, or the lack of an electoral mandate

A quo warranto petition against Sereno can be settled as a process wherein what needs to be proven in court is if she - come a de jure chief Justice. If she can argue that her failure to submit her SALNs would not be enough to disqualify her, then she would qualify to become an allegations made by lawyer Larry Gadon against her can then take their due course in the appropriate proceedings.

submit her SALNs was indeed fatal, then she would become merely a de jure public by impeachment. The impeachment proceeding therefore becomes moot.

Thus, the quo warranto petition is not an assault on the powers of Congress to impeach, considering that they are addressing two different questions: the quo warranto addresses issues of proceeding addresses issues that were committed while in office that are deemed impeachable offenses. The quo warranto petition in fact needs to be determine whether Sereno is a de jure take jurisdiction in an impeachment proceeding, or if she is merely a de facto - cations, and thus can be stripped of the position she is unlawfully occupying.

Sen. Franklin Drilon argues that submission of SALNs is not a necessary justice. However, this is belied by the fact that the JBC required it, and that Sereno even had to write a letter justifying her inability to submit the required SALNs. Drilon should also be reminded not to make light of the power of SALNs, knowing that he was one of those who voted to oust Chief Justice Renato Corona because of his misdeclared SALN.

Rep. Edsel Lagman argues that a quo warranto petition will fail because Sereno’s failure to submit her SALNs the position of chief justice has gone past the one-year prescription period. Calida rebuts this by arguing that the period must be reckoned from the time of discovery. To a layperson, Calida’s argument is more consistent with serv- ing the interest of justice, as it insists in making someone accountable for an act, and not just get away with it because the People of the Philippines only found After all, the principle of a prescription period is interpreted to mean that the failure to take action by an aggrieved party who is conscious and knowledgeable of an offense is understood as a tacit waiver. In the case of Sereno, the People represented by government and by Calida was only recently made aware of her failure to submit her SALNs.

Remove the cobwebs of legal acrobatics, and the tainted lenses of political power play, and the issue of the quo warranto petition against Sereno becomes a valid, legal and logical step to take. even impeach her.