CHIEF Justice Maria Lourdes A. Sereno is ready to stand before her fellow magistrates to argue that it is not within her colleagues’ jurisdiction to decide on the quo warranto petition seeking the nullification of her appointment filed against her by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
“Yes, the CJ [Chief Justice] will attend the oral arguments to answer questions of justices. But her appearance is without prejudice to our jurisdiction challenge,” said lawyer Jojo Lacanilao, one of Sereno’s spokesmen.
On Tuesday the Supreme Court (SC) en banc compelled Sereno to appear on the oral arguments scheduled on April 10 in Baguio City and answer the questions from he fellow justices.
The High Tribunal granted Sereno’s motion to conduct an oral argument on the petition, which Solicitor General Jose C. Calida also lauded.
Calida, likewise, hailed the decision of the SC to deny the petition for intervention filed by the Makabayan bloc consisting of party-list lawmakers led by Party-list Rep. Carlos Isagani T. Zarate of Bayan Muna and a group of private individuals led by running protest Fr. Robert Reyes.
Sereno had earlier asked the SC to dismiss the OSG’s petition on technical grounds, particularly for lack of jurisdiction and violation of the one-year prescription period for the filing of such petitions.
She argued that the SC has no jurisdiction and authority to remove her from office because the 1987 Constitution provides that she could only be ousted by impeachment in
Congress as she is an impeachable official.
A quo warranto proceedings is initiated against an individual who usurps, intrudes into or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office; a public official who commits an act that serves as a ground for the forfeiture of the position; or an association that acts as a corporation in the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority to act.
Sereno, who was forced to go on indefinite leave upon the prodding of her fellow magistrates, cited Section 2, Article XI, of the 1987 Constitution which provides 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.
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.”
The SC, on the other hand, merely noted the intervention petition filed by Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Calida’s petition against Sereno stemmed from a letter filed by suspended lawyer Eligio Mallari, urging him to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against the top magistrate. On February 21 Mallari, who called Sereno a “de facto chief justice”, asked the OSG to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against her.
Calida insisted that a quo warranto proceeding is a “proper remedy to question the validity of Sereno’s appointment.