SC urged to dismiss quo warranto plea vs CJ
Militant lawmakers and a group of concerned citizens yesterday rallied behind Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in seeking the dismissal of a petition calling for her ouster.
The Makabayan bloc of party-list lawmakers led by Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate and a group led by running priest Robert Reyes asked the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss the quo warranto case filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida against Sereno.
The Chief Justice welcomed moves calling for the dismissal
of the quo warranto petition against her.
“Very happy,” Sereno told journalists when asked for comment about the opposition-in-intervention petition filed by the party-list bloc before the high court.
She declined to give further comments.
In a speech at a women’s rights forum at the University of the Philippines, Sereno described the allegations against her as “imagined” by those who were funded by a formidable machinery.
Aside from Makabayan, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) said it would also seek the dismissal of the quo warranto case against Sereno.
Zarate’s group warned that the petition, if granted by the SC, would set a dangerous and ruinous precedent that can be used against any impeachable officer, including other SC magistrates who go against the wishes of the administration or interest groups.
“The Supreme Court itself ruled that it is forbidden to shortcut or circumvent the impeachment process. In the past, it did not even allow the disbarment of a justice of the high court because it maintained that the proper process is through impeachment. The same process should also be accorded to CJ Sereno,” the lawmakers said in a petition filed before the SC.
They agreed with Sereno’s defense that she could not be subjected to quo warranto proceedings as she could only be removed through an impeachment process as provided under the 1987 Constitution.
“The quo warranto case is wrong and unconstitutional because it robs the Filipino people of the means to properly hear and judge the side of CJ Sereno through a trial at the Senate sitting as an impeachment court. As representatives of the people, we will not allow this legal shortcut to take that power away from the people and at the same time undermine the judiciary as an institution by letting CJ Sereno’s peers oust her,” Zarate said.
“All allegations in the quo warranto case are part of the articles of impeachment and have been approved by the Congress justice committee. It would be to the best inter- est of the country if CJ Sereno is given her fair trial in the Senate impeachment court,” he added.
Zarate was joined by Reps. Antonio Tinio and Francisca Castro of ACT Teachers party-list, Emmi de Jesus and Arlene Brosas of Gabriela, Ariel Casilao of Anakpawis party-list and Sarah Jane Elago of Kabataan as well as by former senator Rene Saguisag, retired Col. George Rabusa and Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo in filing the petition.
Meanwhile, the group of Fr. Reyes filed a similar petition for intervention that raised the same arguments.
The group said that impeachment is the only action that can be undertaken to unseat an impeachable officer like the chief justice.
Citing the Constitution, the group said the chief justice is among those mentioned in a provision who can be removed by impeachment.
Aside from the chief justice, other public officials who can be removed only by impeachment are the president, vice president, SC associate justices, members of the constitutional commissions and the ombudsman.
Reyes’ group said Sereno’s appointment is valid, considering the process that she went through, including the screening of the Judicial and Bar Council, being shortlisted by the JBC and the president’s decision to appoint her.
“Any other charges, such as the incomplete submission of statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) and the result of her psychological tests, can be best explained in the course of a full-blown impeachment trial,” the group said.
It also supported Sereno’s argument that Calida’s petition should be dismissed for violating the one-year prescription period for filing quo warranto cases as provided under the Rules of Court.
Meanwhile, the IBP will file a similar intervention petition before the SC today.
In a statement, the IBP said its board of governors decided on Wednesday to intervene in the case as part of its duty to uphold the Constitution, advocate the rule of law and safeguard the administration of justice.
The IBP said that Sereno could only be removed through impeachment proceedings in Congress and could not be covered by a quo warranto petition.
“Under the Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court may not be ordered dismissed by any government authority other than by the Senate after an impeachment proceeding,” the IBP said.
“Entertaining the quo warranto petition on account of the Chief Justice’s supposed lack of integrity is tantamount to subjecting her to the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court,” it added.