Quo warranto now in SC jurisprudence

Ihad no doubts that the Supreme Court (SC) would not give in to the appeal of ousted former Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno whom the SC permanently removed as Chief Justice only last Tuesday after granting the quo warranto petition of Solicitor General Jose Calida last May 11. Honestly I thought that in that May 11 decision, the SC made it clear that particular decision was no longer appealable.

But somehow, her former peers agreed to listen to her appeal, but in the end, plunked the final nail to her appeal. In short, the quo warranto decision is final. That 8-6 decision of the Justices junked her final petition before the High Tribunal. The quo warranto decision to remove an impeachable officer is now part of Philippine jurisprudence whether you like it or not. While the late Chief Justice Renato Corona made history when he was impeached and convicted by the Legislature, former CJ Sereno also made history as the first top magistrate to be ousted by the High Court. There is no doubt the Philippine judiciary is a very interesting place!

Meanwhile, SC spokesperson Theodore Te declared in a press briefing “The 90-day period for filling the vacancy in the office of Chief Justice commences today.” Of course, he meant this last Tuesday. The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the body tasked to screen applicants to the judiciary, earlier held off its search for the replacement of Sereno in order to wait for the Supreme Court’s final ruling. That waiting period is now over so the JBC is now tasked to carry out its mandate to find a suitable replacement for the ousted Chief Justice. I hope that this time around, the JBC won’t put in names of people who cannot even pass their psychology exam or give in just because he or she is a friend or classmate of the appointing power.

Incidentally, legal luminaries posed a question in Cebu on the effects of the SC quo warranto decision on the cases that were resolved by Sereno when she was Chief Justice. We understand from legal luminaries that a quo warranto decision against Sereno means that she was never considered to be Chief Justice… ab initio… from the beginning. So what should the SC decide on the cases that Sereno decided if she has been considered a person who never held the position of Chief Justice? Perhaps the SC mentioned this in their latest decision in denying Sereno her appeal, but at this point, I haven’t read that decision yet.

So now the JBC can start searching for applicants for Chief Justice and we earnestly hope they can come up with a better decision this time around. Incidentally, despite the finality of her ouster, Sereno is not yet completely out of the SC’s scrutiny as her colleagues still have to decide whether or not to punish her – and what form the sanction could take, for “casting aspersions and ill motives” to them. This is very true! Sereno was brutally against her fellow Justices accusing them of being biased against her.

When the SC disqualified her from the Office of the Chief Justice, the SC also made Sereno explain why she should not be sanctioned for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Indeed, Sereno may be held liable for “repeatedly discussing the merits” of her case in a manner that could sway the tribunal’s vote and influence public opinion, a behavior the tribunal can rule as conduct “unbecoming” of a judge and a lawyer. This is called a case of sub judice in court, which we believe is a very serious offense against the Court. So this issue may be over and done with, but it will go on until the SC makes a final decision on how she should be punished for sub judice.

In another issue of legal implications, we learned from news reports that Senate President Vicente Sotto III has asked the Inquirer through a letter not to publish any more stories about the Pepsi Paloma case that happened in 1985. Unfortunately, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) last Saturday said that Senate President Tito Sotto is attempting to suppress the freedom of the press in his request for an online news outfit to take down stories on his alleged involvement

in a decades-old rape case. The NUJP apparently condemned Sotto’s move after US-based columnist Rodel Rodis’ Facebook post containing Sotto’s letter request circulated online. Rodis said that deletion of the stories would set a dangerous precedent.

Come on, Article 90 of our Criminal Code stipulates that there is a prescription of crime punishable by death or reclusion perpetua which shall prescribe after 20 years. If Senate President Tito Sotto was never filed any cases involving Pepsi Paloma, this case is now considered prescribed in our jurisprudence and no one should publish such articles because it only proves ill-motive.