Sereno returns P5-M service vehicle
Ousted chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno has returned her controversial service vehicle to the Supreme Court (SC) after the decision removing her from the top judicial post became final earlier this week.
The STAR learned that the disqualified SC chief continued to use the P5-million Toyota Land Cruiser even after stepping down from her position last May 11 when the high court handed down its decision that was supposed to be immediately executory.
Sereno waited for the finality of the ruling last Tuesday before surrendering the service vehicle, which is now in the parking lot of the SC.
It was not known, however, who will be using the vehicle for the meantime and if it would be given to the next chief justice.
The Land Cruiser figured in the impeachment complaint filed against Sereno before the House of Representatives.
Prior to the SC ruling on the quo warranto proceedings against Sereno, the House justice committee had approved the six articles of impeachment after it earlier found probable cause against her.
The committee found ample basis to impeach Sereno for culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, corruption and other high crimes based on the six grounds, including her “misuse of government funds” involving the Land Cruiser.
Apart from the service vehicle, the high court has also recalled the security details assigned to Sereno. Her name and photo were earlier removed from the SC website.
The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), meanwhile, is set to immediately start the search for Sereno’s replacement next week as ordered by the SC.
Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, ex-officio member of the council tasked to vet nominees to judicial posts, revealed that they would meet on Monday to open the nomination for the vacant top judicial post.
Meanwhile, Guevarra has expressed support to the SC ruling amid mounting criticisms from various sectors against it.
In an interview with CNN Philippines yesterday, the DOJ chief said he personally believes the decision of the high court granting the quo warranto petition of the solicitor general was “correct.”
“If you are asking me about my personal opinion as a law professor, I think the decision was correct insofar as making a distinction between quo warranto and impeachment as a mode of removing a justice of the (SC),” said the former professor at the Ateneo law school.
“The (SC) has made a final decision on the matter and I would like to respect that decision,” he stressed.
But Guevarra believed that a similar case could be avoided in the future.
“Now that the Constitution is proposed to be amended, we’d rather make it very clear in the (Charter) that the only way to remove impeachable officers will be by impeachment,” he suggested.
“Otherwise, the (SC) may change the Rules of Court pertaining to quo warranto and make it very clear likewise that even impeachable officers may be subject to (it). Either way, the need is to clarify,” he added.