SC ruling on Sereno appeal out today

The fate of ousted chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno will be known today as the Supreme Court is set to decide on her appeal of the SC ruling that removed her through a mere quo warranto petition.

Her motion for reconsideration has been included in today’s regular session agenda of the justices, an insider revealed.

The source, speaking on condition of anonymity for

lack of authority to speak for the Court and the confidentiality of the matter, said a 25-page draft resolution written by Associate Justice Noel Tijam has already been circulated among the magistrates.

The justices are expected to vote on whether to grant or deny her appeal based on the arguments raised in the 205page motion filed last May 30.

If the justices maintain their 8-6 vote to deny the motion for reconsideration – as some reports have suggested – the decision will become final and could no longer be appealed.

For the Judicial and Bar Council, which opted to wait for the finality of the ruling, this would mean the immediate start in the search for Sereno’s replacement as chief justice.

In its ruling last May 11, the Court granted the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida and invalidated the appointment of Sereno in 2012. The SC disqualified her from the post for lack of proven integrity due to her failure to file all the required statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) when she was still teaching law at the University of the Philippines.

Since the ruling was immediately executory, it prompted Sereno to vacate her post and the designation of Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio as acting chief justice.

Apart from Sereno’s ouster, the SC also issued a show cause order requiring her to explain 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.”

In her appeal, the ousted SC chief insisted on her argument that the SC has no authority to remove her from office because she could only be ousted through an impeachment process under the Constitution. She also claimed that the Court violated her constitutional right to due process and overstepped its power.

Sereno likewise argued that the quo warranto petition should have not been granted because it already went beyond the one-year prescription period from appointment.