(Eagle News) — Fourteen senators on Thursday, May 16, filed a resolution urging the Supreme Court to review its decision nullifying the appointment of Maria Lourdes Sereno as Chief Justice.
The opposition senators who signed the draft resolution as of Wednesday, May 16, were Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon, Senators Antonio Trillanes IV, Risa Hontiveros, Bam Aquino, Francis Pangilinan and Leila de Lima.
Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III, Senators Francis Escudero, Sherwin Gatchalian, Grace Poe, Juan Edgardo Angara, Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph Recto and Senator Joel Villanueva also signed the draft.
Senator Loren Legarda was the new addition to the group, who eventually filed the draft as Senate Resolution No. 738.
Among those who did not sign the resolution was Senator Panfilo Lacson, who earlier said the document was “premature,” as the Articles of Impeachment against Sereno and the committee report had not yet been transmitted to the Senate.
The report and the articles are still pending before the House justice panel, which is supposed to send them for voting in the plenary.
But House justice panel Rep. Rey Umali has said he would move for a halt in the impeachment proceedings to avoid a “constitutional crisis.”
The crisis, he said, could stem from the conflicting views between the Supreme Court, which sees the position of Chief Justice as vacant, and the Senate, which would see it as filled if it proceeds with an impeachment trial.
Only via impeachment
In the resolution, the 14 senators argued that based on Section II Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, members of the Supreme Court “may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution.”
Section 3(1) of Article XI, they said, states that the House of Representatives “shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.”
Section 3(6), they added, states that the Senate “shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.”
“Whereas, the Supreme Court decision to grant the quo warranto petition sets a dangerous precedent that transgresses the exclusive powers of the legislative branch to initiate, try and decide all cases of impeachment,” they said.
They said “a fundamental doctrine of a republican government is the separation of powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government; and while this doctrine does not guarantee absolute autonomy in the discharge of functions of each branch, the corollary doctrine of checks and balances ensures their co-equality.”
“Now therefore be it resolved as it is hereby resolved to express the sense of the Senate of the Philippines to uphold the Constitution on the matter of removing a Chief Justice from office and respectfully urge the Supreme Court to review its decision to nullify the appointment of (Sereno) as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines,” they said.
Voting 8-6, the SC granted the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida against Sereno, which eventually led to her appointment as Chief Justice being invalidated.
The SC argued impeachment and quo warranto were distinct from each other; the first, the High Court said, was a political process, while the second was a judicial process.
The SC ruled both could therefore proceed “independently and simultaneously.”
