Sereno claims victory, sees bigger battle ahead
Ousted chief justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno claimed victory even after her colleagues voted yesterday to remove her from the top judicial post.
Shortly after announcement of the ruling granting the quo warranto petition filed by the solicitor general against her, Sereno stepped out of the SC building and met her supporters.
“This day is not a day of defeat, but rather a victory. I was removed from my position, but the six votes that said I should stay only mean that what we’ve been fighting for is correct,” she told the crowd.
The ousted chief justice did not recognize the votes of the six magistrates she earlier asked to inhibit from the case due to alleged biases.
She was referring to Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam and Samuel Martires.
Sereno said only the votes of the eight remaining justices should matter and be counted – Senior Associate Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Mariano del Castillo, Estela Bernabe, Marvic Leonen, Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Andres Reyes
Jr. and Alexander Gesmundo.
“Actually, we won in this case,” Sereno said. “Six of those eight justices said that I should not be removed from my office. Only two of them voted that I should be removed.”
Carpio, Velasco, Del Castillo, Bernabe, Leonen and Caguioa voted for the dismissal of the quo warranto petition, while Reyes and Gesmundo voted to allow it.
But Sereno lamented the results of the SC voting, saying the six other magistrates had refused to inhibit.
“This is a first in our history – the majority in the Supreme Court removed their colleague. They took away the right of the Senate and destroyed the judiciary,” Sereno said.
She said the justices who voted to boot her out of the 15-member tribunal seized “the sole responsibility of the Senate, brazenly violated their sworn responsibility to protect the Constitution and destroyed the judiciary.”
Sereno urged the hundreds of protesting supporters to organize a movement to defend justice and accountability.
“Let’s continue to defend the Constitution and fight wrongdoing. Let’s continue to spread the message of democracy and reason,” she said.
Sereno has been at loggerheads with President Duterte and has urged Filipinos to stand up to his authoritarian rule.
The former law professor at the University of the Philippines said the quo warranto petition that her fellow justices approved violated the Constitution, which provides that top officials like her can only be removed by impeachment.
The SC took note of Sereno’s speaking engagements when she took an indefinite leave.
She has been speaking up for the respect of law and human rights, irking Duterte at a time he has led a brutal crackdown on illegal drugs that has left thousands of suspects dead.
Apart from ordering her ouster, the SC also directed the former chief magistrate to show cause why she should not be penalized for supposedly violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Judicial Conduct “for transgressing the sub judice rule and for casting aspersions and ill motives to the members of the Supreme Court.”
She returned to her office last Wednesday when she ended her indefinite leave since March 1 upon collegial decision by the SC justices.
She presided over the special session yesterday, but was immediately asked to leave the room as a majority of the justices decided to tackle her quo warranto case immediately out of eight items in the agenda.
Various groups from civil society and academe rallied behind Sereno in her quo warranto case before the SC.
Law deans even issued a manifesto supporting Sereno and calling on the SC to junk the solicitor general’s petition.
They supported Sereno’s argument that the quo warranto case violates the Constitution, which provides for ouster of SC justices only via impeachment by Congress.
Among those who signed the manifesto were former solicitor general Florin Hilbay, De La Salle College of Law dean Jose Manuel Diokno and Far Eastern University Institute of Law dean Melencio Sta. Maria – who have all vocally supported Sereno at the onset of the impeachment case in Congress.
‘Hinog sa pilit’
Former president Benigno Aquino III assailed the decision of the SC in removing Sereno from the judicial top post, saying the Court circumvented the Constitution.
“The Supreme Court has said time and again: if the law is already clear, no explanation is needed. What’s in the Constitution is clear; an impeachable officer can only be removed from office through impeachment,” he said.
Aquino described Sereno’s ouster as “hinog sa pilit,” or a fruit still unripe for picking.
He likened the decision to a mango, which fruit turns sour or bitter when forced to ripen.
“If we want a sweet mango, we will have to wait until it is ripe,” Aquino said. “The question now is: how sour is this decision that we are going to swallow?”
Aquino appointed Sereno in 2012 based on a list submitted to him by the Judicial and Bar Council.
Vice President Leni Robredo denounced the SC’s ouster of Sereno.
Robredo called on Filipinos to remain vigilant on the high court’s forthcoming rulings.
“The decision of the Supreme Court favoring the quo warranto petition is a blatant trampling of the most sacred institution in the land, our Constitution. We are very much alarmed by this decision,” Robredo said.
Several lawmakers also rallied behind Sereno in saying the ruling was a mockery of the Constitution.
Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III led the lawmakers in questioning the SC decision to oust Sereno.
Pimentel led his colleagues in stressing the only way to remove erring constitutional officers like the chief justice is through impeachment.
Pimentel said the SC “is supreme in a lot of things but not in everything,” such in matters of impeachment.
Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph Recto said the SC decision “in effect reduced the powers of both houses of Congress.”
Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon said he respects but “totally” disagreed with the ruling.
He said quo warranto “is not the proper, legal and constitutional way to remove an erring impeachable officer.”
Drilon said the SC ruling made the solicitor general the most powerful official in the bureaucracy, even more powerful than both the House of Representatives and the Senate insofar as the removal of impeachable officers is concerned.
“This decision has opened a bottomless pit of power for the solicitor general,” he said.
Sen. Francis Pangilinan said Congress should insist on its exclusive constitutional role to remove key officials like Sereno through impeachment.
“What the majority in the Supreme Court did was a mockery of the Constitution,” Pangilinan said.
“The people should express to the court that the decision was wrong and unacceptable. The position of the six (dissenting justices) was right. Just because many were in favor of her ouster does not make it right,” he added.
Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV said the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be “the cradle of our fragile Constitution, is the same body that killed it.”
Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian lamented the political excitement surrounding Sereno’s ouster.
He said the SC decision to remove Sereno “has obscured the longstanding constitutional doctrines that govern the removal of impeachable officers.”
“The road to unseating any impeachable officer, including the chief justice, must start at the House of Representatives and end at the Senate. No detours are allowed,” Gatchalian said.
Sen. Paolo Benigno Aquino IV said Filipinos are the losers in this decision.
Sen. Risa Hontiveros claimed the SC “has fallen” with its ruling.
Sen. Sonny Angara said the voting showed a divided SC on a crucial constitutional issue.
Detained Sen. Leila de Lima said Sereno’s ouster showed the SC is being supreme over the Constitution.
She said the majority of the justices might think they had just made the SC more powerful with Sereno’s ouster.
No jurisdiction
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said the SC “bludgeoned” its independence and “desecrated the Constitution” in ousting Sereno “in an improvident quo warranto proceeding.”
Lagman said resorting to a quo warranto case has expired six years ago, as it was available only within one year from Sereno’s appointment in 2012 by then president Aquino.
“The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to remove the chief justice in a quo warranto action because the Constitution mandates that an impeachable official, like the chief magistrate, can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate as the impeachment court,” he stressed.
Lagman added the high tribunal “also has no jurisdiction to void a presidential appointment based on the endorsement of the Judicial and Bar Council, which is the constitutional body empowered to screen nominees for appointment in the judiciary.”
Akbayan Rep. Tom Villarin of Akbayan said the ouster of Sereno has removed “what remains of the checks-and-balances in our already embattled democracy under President Duterte.” –