Is Sereno’s integrity the issue that could turn the nation’s collective stomach?

First word

IN filing his quo warranto (Latin: by what warrant?) peti Lourdes Sereno before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General of denial, and which could prove fatal to her case.

A quo warranto is a prerogative writ requiring the person to whom it is directed to show what authority they have for exercising some right or power they claim to hold.

To be asked by “what authority do you sit as chief justice?”, Sereno has no choice now but to answer. This is different from the softball questions in her TV interviews and her speeches that repeated themselves over and

over. It will not be enough for her to say that she wants her day in court.

Sereno’s case is inexorably moving into the court of public opinion. This - need for her removal.

Sereno lacks integrity

Calidaused the word “integrity” multiple times in laying the case for Sereno‘s ouster as chief justice.

In the petition, the Solicitor General asked the high court to: 1) declare as void Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno’s appointment on August 24, 2012 as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines; and 2) oust Sereno from the position of Chief Justice.

He laid the following grounds for his request:

1. While Sereno is an impeachable on quo warranto gives government lawyers the authority to question a void and defective appointment.

2. The petition for quo warranto against Sereno should be differentiated from the impeachment proceedings against her in the House of Representatives. The writ of quo warranto questions the validity of her appointment; the impeachment complaint accuses her of committing culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public

3.The 1987 Constitution sets a “moral provision” to ensure that a member of the judiciary must “be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.”

4. Sereno lacks integrity because she violated the rules of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) when she failed to and net worth (SALN) within the 10year mandated period.

5. This means Sereno is unlawfully holding the position of Chief Justice, even though she was ostensibly recommended by the JBC and then appointed by President Benigno Aquino 3rd.

the positions of Associate Justice and Chief Justice despite her fail required to determine whether she could pass the constitutional requirement of integrity. She never

7. Sereno is a usurper of high - rity” mandated by law.

the land to be accused of lacking charge of the highest order.

Probable cause for impeachment

It is startling that on the same week that the House justice committee found probable cause to impeach CJ Sereno, the Solicitor General also told the Supreme Court that Sereno lacked the valid authority and integrity to hold the post of Chief Justice.

It’s a double blow that predictably rapidly. To her credit, this did not stop her from energetically going the rounds of TV talk shows and appearing in various speaking engagements, and rattling off her standard independence against forces that are determined to oust her.

The House justice committee found probable cause to impeach CJ Sereno, by a vote of 38 to 2.

The committee found the evidence presented during its five Sereno for corruption, betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution before a Senate impeachment court.

In addition, the House committee adopted a proposal to declassify the results of CJ Sereno’s psychological test results, which found her faring badly.

Virtually, Sereno’s only breather is that the House panel still has to draft the articles of impeachment that will be sent to the Senate.

The House in plenary will then vote on each article of impeachment. The or not to impeach Sereno.

At least 98 members of the House plenary are needed to impeach or charge Sereno.

What is integrity

Calida’s introduction of the word “integrity” into a drama and impeachment process that had become wearisome is most welcome. It offers a new spin that’s both interesting and unpredictable.

Integrity is a quality of character, which all of us hope we possess. And which the nation should have a lot more of.

Leadership gurus say that integrity is virtues that make for good character. It is in some sense prior to everything else: the rest of what we think matter very little if we lack essential integrity, the courage of our convictions, the willingness to act and speak for what we know or believe is right.

In his book, ( Harper ), Yale law professor and author Stephen Carter offers this working definition of integrity:

“Integrity requires three steps: 1) discerning what is right and what is wrong; 2) acting on what you have discerned, even at personal cost; and 3) saying openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from wrong.

“The word integrity comes from the same Latin root as integer and historically has been understood to carry much the same sense, the sense of wholeness.”

The armor of integrity

One of the most interesting discussions of integrity that I have read is the work of a former commandant of the US Marine Corps, Gen. Charles C. Krulak (ret.). He delivered an address to an audience of 1,000 business leaders and media, which he entitled, “The Armor of Integrity.”

Among the highlights of his address was this gem:

“Integrity as we know it today, stands for soundness of moral principle and character—uprightness— honesty. Yet there is more. Integrity is also an ideal…a goal to strive for…

“The word integrity is a martial word that comes to us from an ancient Roman army tradition.

“During the time of the 12 Caesars, the Roman army would conduct morning inspection. As the inspector centurion would come in front of each legionnaire, the soldier would breastplate that covered his heart. The armor had to be strongest there to protect the heart from the sword thrusts and arrow strikes.

“As the soldier struck his armor, he would shout ‘ which in Latin means material wholeness.”

A complex and puzzling concept

I cannot end this brief essay without

The subject of integrity is much more complex than my discussion reading a 35,000-word article on the concept of integrity in the

Stanford says that while integrity is one of the most important and oft-cited of virtue terms, it is also perhaps the most puzzling. “While it is sometimes used virtually synonymously with ‘moral,’ we also at times distinguish acting morally from acting with integrity. Persons of integrity may in fact act immorally—though they would usually not know they are acting immorally.”

The entire article is a revelation. I must study some more.