SC to tackle ouster case vs Sereno today
The Supreme Court (SC) is set to tackle the petition by the government’s chief lawyer to oust Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in its summer session in Baguio City beginning today.
An insider revealed that the justices will decide whether or not to give due course to the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida.
“The Court has to resolve the issue on jurisdiction first before it can proceed to resolution of the merits of the petition,” the source explained to The STAR.
In her answer to the quo warranto petition, the Chief Justice asked the SC to dismiss the petition on technical ground, particularly for lack of jurisdiction and violation of the one-year prescription period for filing such case.
Sereno, currently on indefinite leave of absence, argued that the SC has no jurisdiction and authority to remove her from office because the 1987 Constitution provides that she could only be ousted through impeachment.
Citing Article XI Section 2 of the Constitution, she said impeachable officials – including herself and all justices of SC – may only be removed from office upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court.
She also pointed out that the case was filed more than five years after her appointment, thus violating the one-year prescription period for filing such a case.
But Calida insisted in his reply filed last week that Sereno could be covered by the quo warranto case, which 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 seeks to oust Respondent because she is ineligible to be the Chief Justice,” he argued.
“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,” Calida pointed out.
In the petition filed last March 5, Calida asked the SC to nullify Sereno’s appointment over her ineligibility for the top judicial post and order her removal from office as a de facto official whose authority allegedly hinges on an appointment that was void from the start.
The solicitor general pointed out that Sereno did not meet the specific qualification of proven integrity for the chief justice post with her failure to comply with the required submission of 10-year statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).
A quo warranto petition, as provided for in both Article VIII Section 5(1) of the Constitution and Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, challenges the legal basis of one’s appointment and seeks the removal of the respondent from office because of lack of qualification or legal basis to continue holding such office.
In impeachment proceedings, on the other hand, the House justice committee has just approved the articles of impeachment for deliberations of the plenary and the official impeachment of Sereno.
Meanwhile, supporters of Sereno belonging to the Coalition for Justice (CFJ) yesterday called on the high court to uphold judicial independence and due process and junk Calida’s petition. They are set to hold a rally outside the SC compound in Baguio City to dramatize their position.
In a statement, the CFJ said the high court should stand up against oppression and injustice as manifested in the case of the Chief Justice, who is fighting all kinds of attempts to remove her from office, including extra-constitutional means.
“The only shield against abuse is the judiciary that gives hope to the people to attain justice,” the group stressed.
The group supported the argument of Sereno that the 1987 Constitution and jurisprudence provide that impeachable officials like her may only be removed from office through impeachment.
The group said the SC should let the impeachment process take its course in accordance with the Constitution and give Sereno the opportunity to defend herself before the Senate impeachment court.