IBP asks SC to reconsider quo warranto ruling vs Sereno

THE Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has filed a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court on its decision to oust Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno via quo warranto, saying that removing her in this manner is as good as destroying the rule of law.

“The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, through its Board of Governors, filed a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court decision in Republic vs Sereno today. With due respect to the High Court, we maintain that its ruling in Republic vs Sereno was narrowly drawn. It shows the use of the law to pursue a desired result, that is, the ouster of the Chief Justice,” the IBP said in a statement signed by its president Abdiel Fajardo.

“This erodes, if not demolishes, the rule of law to which all members of the Bar have sworn as a condition to admission,” the IBP said.

It was Solicitor General Jose Calida who filed the quo warranto petition against Sereno, arguing that her appointment as Chief Justice in 2012 was invalid because she failed to submit all the copies of her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth ( SALNs) as a professor of the University of the Philippines College of Law to the Judicial and Bar Council ( JBC), which screens applicants for the position of chief justice.

The high court granted the quo warranto petition in a vote of 8- 6.

Sereno’s ouster via quo warranto preempted the impeachment proceedings against her at the House of Representatives.

The impeachment complaint that lawyer Lorenzo Gadon filed against Sereno accused her of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution for:

1. Failure to submit statements of assets, liabilities and net worth or SALNs to the JBC and to declare properties in Bataan and Davao City;

2. Misuse of P18 million in public funds in the purchase of a bulletproof Toyota Land Cruiser, hiring of information technology consultant Helen Macasaet and selection of the Shangri- La Boracay resort for the 3rd Asean Chief Justices’ meeting;

3. Usurping the authority of the Supreme Court as a collegial body by forming a Regional Office of Court Administrator, issuing a temporary restraining order on the case of Coalition of Senior Citizens party- list and transferring the Maute cases from Marawi to Taguig City without en banc or full- court approval;

4. Abusing her position as JBC ex- officio chairperson by excluding the name of then Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza from consideration for the post of associate justice;

5. Interference in the inquiry by the House on the alleged misuse of P66 million in tobacco funds by Ilocos Norte government employees because of a Court of Appeals stay order on the House investigation and undermining its justice panel’s impeachment proceedings, and;

6. Abuse of discretionary power. Under the Constitution, 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 through impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.