MARIA Lourdes P.A. Sereno, a constitutional officer, deemed as victory the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on Friday to oust the Chief Justice from office through a petition for quo warranto.
Voting 8-6, the Court granted the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida on March 5.
After the SC’s official announcement of the ruling, Sereno immediately stepped out of the SC building and spoke to her supporters. The Court’s ruling, which was penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, preempted the impending impeachment trial of Sereno before the Senate.
“They took away the right of the Senate and destroyed the Judiciary,” she told her supporters in reference to the majority of the justices who voted to oust her.
Those who concurred with Tijam’s ponencia were Associate Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Francis H. Jardeleza, Samuel R. Martires, Andres B. Reyes Jr. and Alexander G. Gesmundo, SC Spokesman Theodore Te said in a news conference.
Those who dissented from the majority were Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio and Associate Justices Presbitero Jose Velasco Jr., Mariano C. del Castillo, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Mario Victor F. Leonen and Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa.
“This day is not a day of defeat, but rather a victory,” Sereno told her supporters. “I was removed from my position, but the six votes that I should stay only means that what we’ve been fighting for is correct.”
Sereno has been insisting that, under the Constitution, she can only be ousted through impeachment proceedings.
She cited Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution that states: “The President, the Vice President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.”
Theodore Te clarified that while the vote was 8-6 granting the petition, the justices held a separate voting on the issue of whether or not quo warranto is the proper remedy applicable to Sereno’s case considering she is an impeachable official.
The result of the voting was 9-5, after Velasco voted with the majority.
Bigger battle
THE SC said in the dispositive portion of the ruling, which Te read to reporters, it found Sereno “disqualified from and is hereby adjudged guilty of unlawfully holding and exercising the Office of the Chief Justice. Accordingly, respondent Sereno is ousted and excluded therefrom.”
The Court, however, failed to release a copy of the decision as of this writing.
Te said the ruling is immediately executory “without need for further action from the Court.”
Likewise, the SC also declared the Chief Justice position vacant and ordered the Judicial and Bar Council to start the search for Sereno’s replacement.
Not contented from her ouster, the SC also issued a show cause order requiring her why she should not be penalized for supposedly violating Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Judicial Conduct “for transgressing the subjudice rule and for casting aspersions and ill motives to the members of the Supreme Court.”
Nine of the justices also voted that Sereno violated the Constitution for failure to file her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth.
On this issue, Carpio joined the majority.
Nonetheless, Sereno showed a brave face and told her supporters: “The fight doesn’t end here, as it has just begun.”
“There is a bigger battle ahead and we are put in this place to fight again,” she said.
Palace reaction
MALACAÑANG, which has been publicly at odds with Sereno, only said the public should respect the SC decision.
“The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law,” Presidential Spokesman Harry L. Roque Jr. was quoted in a statement as saying. “The Supreme Court, a co-equal branch of government, is duty-bound to uphold the Constitution. The court ruling is, likewise, an assertion of the supremacy of the fundamental law of the land.”
Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador S. Panelo was also quoted in the statement as saying the SC is only performing its constitutional duty of interpreting that the constitutional provisions and rendering a decision on cases properly brought before it.
“The assumption of jurisdiction is a triumph of the rule of law. Dura lex sed lex or ‘the law may be harsh, but it is the law’. Decisions [can neither] be based on emotions nor on biases,” Panelo added.
Con-com review
MEANWHILE, Ateneo School of Government Dean Ronald U. Mendoza urged the constitutional committee (Con-com) reviewing the 1987 Constitution to speak up “now that [the] SC has basically violated the [Constitution].”
“How can they credibly propose amendments to a [Constitution] these justices just violated? How can we create a new one—we can’t even protect the old one?” Mendoza said in a Twitter post on Friday. In a statement, the Con-com said the body “will consider the Sereno case in designing the Federal Judiciary.”
“It is the Con-com’s objective to clearly define in the new Constitution the allocation of powers among the three branches of government, and in the case of the judiciary, strengthen its internal and external independence,” the statement read.