SC defers final ruling on Sereno case
The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday deferred ruling with finality on the ouster case against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.
In their resumption of session after a month-long decision writing recess, justices of the High Court tackled the motion for reconsideration (MR) filed last week by Sereno on the May 11 decision that granted the quo warranto petition of the solicitor general and removed her from the top judicial post.
But instead of immediately ruling on the appeal as they would normally do in other cases, the magistrates decided to seek a comment first from Solicitor General Jose Calida.
They gave Calida’s office a non-extendible period of five days from notice or until next week to comply with the order and submit a comment on Sereno’s appeal.
The camp of Sereno welcomed the High Court’s move to take more time before resolving the MR.
“We are encouraged that the justices have given themselves more time to appreciate the new arguments, facts and matters that make the reconsideration of the May 11 decision compelling,” lawyer Jojo Lacanilao, one of the spokespersons of the ousted chief justice, said in a statement.
Lacanilao reiterated their appeal for the SC to reverse its ruling as he made a lastminute call on the justices “to set aside personal animosity and rule only according to what is right.”
“Unless reconsidered, that decision will wreak havoc on the basic premise of judicial decisions, which is fair play in an impartial tribunal, consistency with judicial precedents and, as important, the preservation of the Constitutional checks and balance,” the lawyer stressed.
“The constitutional design requires respect for the Senate’s exclusive power to remove impeachable officials and for the stability of the tenure of public officials by the ban on quo warranto after one year has set in,” he argued.
Lacanilano likewise renewed their plea for inhibition of six justices they accused of bias against Sereno – Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam and Samuel Martires.
“Judicial independence requires respect for the impeachment process to ensure independence even of justices from each other. Accusers, especially if there is rivalry for a post, cannot be at the same time judges of the person sought to be removed,” he added.
While the ruling was not final, it was immediately executory so Sereno was ordered to vacate her office last May 11.
Apart from Sereno’s ouster, the SC also issued a show cause order requiring her to show 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 (SC).”
In her appeal, Sereno argued that the SC violated her constitutional right to due process and overstepped its power.
She insisted in her argument that the SC has no authority to remove her from office because she could only be ousted through the impeachment process under the Constitution.
She also reiterated that the issue on her SALNs cannot be a basis for adjudging that she lacked integrity and was dishonest.
The ousted SC chief added that the decision made baseless conclusions that are unsupported by evidence, such as her alleged tax fraud.
On technical grounds, Sereno insisted that Calida’s petition should have not been granted because it went beyond the one-year prescription period under the law.
Meanwhile, presidential spokesman Harry Roque Jr. yesterday said Sereno should undergo a psychological test after she accused President Duterte anew of firing alleged corrupt officials just to divert national attention.
“You know, I think this chief justice already needs psychosocial assistance. How can people being fired just for show?” he asked in Filipino.
Roque was reacting to reports that Sereno doubted the credibility of Duterte’s style of firing erring members of his Cabinet.