Sereno asked to personally answer petition to oust her

BAGUIO CITY – Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno will face her fellow magistrates in the high tribunal on April 10 for oral arguments on the petition to oust her which was filed by the government’s chief lawyer.

In summer session here, the justices granted Sereno’s request for oral arguments at 2 p.m. on April 10 on the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida. SC spokesman Theodore Te announced yesterday.

The justices said Sereno, who is on indefinite leave, should “attend personally and answer questions from the Court.”

It will be the first time a sitting chief justice will face fellow justices in an oral argument – not as head of the Court but as respondent in a case.

Also, the SC denied the two petitions for intervention filed by the Makabayan bloc of party-list lawmakers led by Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate and a group of private individuals led by running priest Fr. Robert Reyes. But it took note of a similar intervention filed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

In his petition, Calida asked the SC to nullify Sereno’s appointment over what he considered her ineligibility for the top judicial post. He wanted her colleagues to remove her from office as a de facto official whose authority hinges on an appointment that was void from the start.

Earlier yesterday, members of “faithbased groups” picketed outside the SC compound here to voice their support for Sereno.

The Coalition for Justice (CFJ) said the Chief Justice should be given her day in court, apparently referring to her possible impeachment trial at the Senate.

The CFJ maintained that Sereno “represents every Filipino seeking justice,” while reminding the SC that “in every case, but especially in hers, judges should not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial or else they must voluntarily recuse themselves.”

They also called on the SC magistrates “to guarantee Chief Justice Sereno the protections it provides.”

The junking of the quo warranto petition, they stressed, would brighten the hope of every Filipino who has lost faith in the judicial system.

Another group, “Every Woman,” said it agrees with the IBP position that impeachment “is the only constitutionally recognized mode by which to remove a sitting Chief Justice.”

In his quo warranto petition, the solicitor general argued 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 Article VIII Section 5(1) of the Constitution and Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, challenges the legal basis of one’s appointment.

It was filed while Sereno faced impeachment proceedings in Congress where the House justice committee has approved the articles of impeachment for deliberations in the plenary.

In her answer, 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 argued that the SC has no 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.