Sereno to make history, will attend SC oral argument on quo warranto
For the first time in the history of the country’s judiciary, an incumbent Chief Justice will face her colleagues in the Supreme Court (SC) not as head of the judiciary but as respondent in the petition that sought her disqualification and ouster.
Chief Justice-on leave Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno will attend the oral argument on April 10 in Baguio City on the quo warranto case filed against her by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida in behalf of the government.
The camp of Sereno will also seek the inhibition of Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo de Castro in the oral argument. It said a motion to that effect will be filed within this week.
De Castro, perceived as the archcritic of Sereno, testified in the impeachment hearings conducted by the House Committee on Justice which found probable cause on the complaints filed by lawyer Larry Gadon.
Sereno’s colleagues in the
SC had granted the oral argument sought by Calida and Sereno herself. But the SC justices, now headed by acting Chief Justice Antonio T. Carpio, had instructed Sereno “to attend personally and answer questions from the court en banc” (full court).
Sereno went on an indefinite leave last March 1 on the prodding of her colleagues in the SC, to prepare for her impeachment cases and possible trial before the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
On the oral argument, Sereno’s spokesperson lawyer Jose Lacanilao said on Wednesday “the Chief Justice will attend the oral argument to answer question from justices.”
But Lacanilao said that while Chief Justice Sereno will appear personally during the oral argument on April 10 “her appearance does not necessarily mean she has conceded to the propriety of the quo warranto proceedings against her.”
“Her appearance is without prejudice to our jurisdiction challenge,” he stressed.
In her comment to the petition, Sereno asked the SC to dismiss the quo waranto case for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the High Court and for lack of merit.
On top of lack of jurisdiction and merit, she said the quo warranto petition has expired since it was filed not within the year from her appointment to the top post in the judiciary in 2012.
The six Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Committee on Justice have yet to be voted on by the entire members of the House of Representatives and a one-third vote of all members would elevate the impeachment complaints before the Senate for trial.
In her comment on the quo warranto petition, Sereno said the SC has no jurisdiction since the Constitution provides that impeachable officials, including SC justices, may be removed from office upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court.
But in his reply, Calida said that the quo warranto case against Sereno is different and independent from the ongoing impeachment proceedings in Congress.
“The Constitution does not include ineligibility to public position as a ground for impeachment. No one can be convicted for ineligibility. The sole purpose of impeachment proceedings is to hold a public officer accountable for wrongdoings committed in office. On the other hand, the quo warranto proceedings instituted by the Solicitor General seek to oust Respondent because she is ineligible to be the Chief Justice,” he said.
“In other words, the Solicitor General is not asking the Court to remove Respondent for impeachable offenses: it is not the concern of the petition. Instead, the Solicitor General has good reason to believe that Respondent has no authority to occupy the esteemed office of the Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines: she had not shown that she possessed proven integrity, an indispensable qualification for appointment to the Judiciary pursuant to Section 7(3), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution,” he added.
Meanwhile, Senators Leila de Lima and Antonio Trillanes IV filed on Wednesday a motion to intervene in the quo warranto case against Sereno.
In their motion, De Lima and Trillanes said:
“Any proceeding whose aim is to remove an impeachable public officer outside an impeachment trial in the Senate is a palpable violation of the Constitution; it is a diminution of the Impeachment Clause, a circumvention of the exclusive character of an impeachment, and incompatible with the design of the Constitution.
“With due respect, the Honorable Court should not allow itself to become a party to a patent transgression of the Constitution.”