(Eagle News) – Insisting that she can only be removed by impeachment, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno asked the Supreme Court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and merit the quo warranto petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that claimed she was ineligible to be appointed as chief magistrate in 2012.
In a 77-page comment to the quo warranto petition, Sereno, through her lawyers led by Alexander Poblador said that the Supreme Court has no authority to remove her from office using the quo warranto procedure.
Sereno questioned “by what authority” did the OSG “defy the clear mandate of the Constitution and settled jurisprudence that Members of the Supreme Court may be removed ‘only by impeachment’.”
She said that only the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) can make a “sound discretion” on the integrity of a chief magistate.
“By what authority does the OSG seek a judicial review of a political question ‘constitutionally committed’ to the sound discretion of the Judicial and Bar Council, whether the Chief Justice is of proven integrity?” she said in her comment to the quo warranto petition of the OSG.
Sereno said that the “text of the 1987 Constitution, the Constitutional Commission’s deliberations, and established jurisprudence consistently state that impeachable officials like her can be ousted “only by impeachment.”
She cited Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution which provided that impeachable officials, which include all members of the SC, may only be removed from office upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court.
“The SC itself has consistently applied this provision as a limitation on its power to remove public officers,” she said in a press release.
The high court, she said, “cannot take cognizance of or give due course to the [OSG petition] without running afoul of the plain dictates of the fundamental law and established judicial precedents.”
Sereno said the petition should be dismissed not only because of the Constitution and jurisprudence so demand, “but also because the Chief Justice deserves her day in court before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Tribunal.”
“To rule otherwise, and to preempt the impeachment process by summarily ousting the Chief Justice via quo warranto, would be tantamount to overthrowing the Constitution itself,” Sereno said in her statement.
-“Time barred” –
Besides, Sereno pointed out, the quo warranto petition of the OSG should not be entertained at all by the high court for being “time-barred.”
Section 11, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, provides that a petition for quo warranto must be filed within one year from the “cause of ouster,” she said.
“There is no authority to commence a quo warranto proceeding more than four years after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations,” she contended.
Sereno also assailed the OSG for its pretext that she flunked the test of integrity for her alleged failure to submit her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) when she was law professor at the University of the Philippines prior to her appointment to the SC as associate justice in 2010.
She noted that her alleged non-filing of UP SALNs with the JBC were not included in the impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Lorenzo Gadon and she has not yet been given the opportunity to debunk these allegations.
Sereno, who is on indefinite leave as Supreme Court chief justice, insisted that she had complied with the SALN law when she was a UP law professor and that she is ready to prove this in the Senate impeachment trial, which is the proper forum, “without prejudice to jurisdictional and relevance objections.”
She pointed out that contrary to claims, it has not been proven that she failed to comply with the SALN laws while in UP, especially since she was cleared by UP of all administrative responsibilities and accountabilities as a member of its law faculty.
During the impeachment hearings before the House Committee on Justice, it was revealed that the UP Human Resource Development Office (HRDO) issued a certificate of clearance to Sereno.
-JBC determines integrity requirement – Sereno”
“With respect to the SALN submissions required by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the Chief Justice maintained that only the JBC has the power to determine who meets the integrity requirement for appointment to the judiciary and that such question is a purely political one,” her release said.
“There is no authority for the judicial review of a purely political question, as the OSG cannot substitute its judgment for the discretion of the JBC to include a name in the shortlist for the position of Chief Justice, and certainly the OSG cannot overturn the then President’s decision to appoint her to that position,” Sereno said.
Solicitor General Jose Calida filed the petition for quo warranto against Sereno on March 5, saying that it was an “act of kindness” on his part as, he said, he did not want Sereno to undergo the indignity of an impeachment trial in the Senate.
“The Office of the Solicitor General will not allow you to undergo the indignity that the late Chief Justice Renato Corona suffered at the hands of politicians who unjustly convicted him. You do not deserve that,” he said.
Only Associate Justice Marvic Leonen dissented when the Supreme Court on March 6 asked Sereno to submit her comment on the OSG’s quo warranto petition.
“In his opinion, the petition should be dismissed outright,” said SC Public Information Office chief Atty. Theodore Te of Justice Leonen’s position. (with a report from Moira Encina, Eagle News Service)
