Two senators deplored the denial of ex-Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno’s motion for reconsideration of her removal through quo warranto petition by eight of her fellow Justices, avoiding congressional impeachment proceedings mandated by law.
Opposition Sen. Antonio Trillanes, citing the opposition’s dwindling ranks, on Tuesday bemoaned “only half” of the 24 Senators who are left can be relied upon to challenge the Duterte administration’s dictatorial tendencies.
This as Sen. Joel Villanueva asserted that the eight Justices who moved for Sereno’s ouster should have followed the constitutionally-mandated process for replacing the Chief Justice.
“From the very beginning, I have stressed my position that the appropriate process to discuss the removal of CJ Sereno is through an impeachment process,” says Villanueva. “Clearly, according to the Constitition, the Senate has the sole responsibility in exacting accountability to judicial appointees or impeachable officers,” the Senator added.
The senators aired their misgiving after majority of the Supreme Court Justices earlier denied ex-Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno’s motion for reconsideration of the quo warranto petition—instead of the constitutionally-mandated congressional impeachment proceedings—ousting her by 8-6 SC vote last month.
Trillanes scored the controversial SC ruling junking Sereno’s appeal as a victory in favor of President Duterte.
“Duterte, once again, succeeded in destroying another bulwark of our fragile Democracy, the Supreme Court,” Sen. Trillanes said.
In a statement, the opposition Senator warned the SC’s latest ruling favoring President Duterte effectively removed one of the major roadblock hindering revival of dictatorship.
“Now, only half of the Senate stands in his way from completely installing his ruthless and corrupt authoritarian regime,” says Sen. Trillanes.
It will be recalled that the Commission on Human Rights had earlier deplored the SC Justices resort to a quo warranto petition in ousting Chief Justice Sereno, voicing regret that it “eroded our obedience to the rule of law and departs from the will of the Filipino people.”
In a separate statement, Liberal Party Senator Francis Pangilinan pointed out that of the eight Justices who accused Sereno, “six belong to the majority who made the decision” to oust the ex-Chief Justice.
Without naming names, Sen. Pangilinan asserted in a statement that “the accuser cannot be judge. Ang nagpaparatang ay hindi maaaring maghusga.”
The Senator stressed that “this is a simple law based on a very simple principle: the law must be fair.”
Pangilinan added: “Because in boxing, the referee cannot join the fight inside the ring. Because it is not fair. It is not right. Especially why it cannot be used to run a country.”
Sen. Pangilinan, however, held out hopes that the beleaguered ex-Chief Justice Sereno can not be counted out, just yet, insisting that: “the fight is not yet over, the fight isn’t simply confined in the ring. It’s in our homes, schools, churches, farms, offices and factories. We need to ask ourselves what we can do as ordinary citizens who cannot allow our fundamental principle of justice to be trampled.”
For his part, Senate Minority Leader Frank Drilon, a former Secretary of Justice Secretary of Justice, said the High Court’s quo warranto decision did not surprise him.
“I am not surprised. It is difficult to reverse a decision rendered by the majority of the Supreme Court justice,” says Drilon. “But having said that, technically the Senators can still pass a resolution which expresses the sense of the Senate insofar as the quo warranto is concerned.”
Drilon added: “There is nothing wrong with agreeing or disagreeing with a decision of the Supreme Court. In this case, or in any other case, After the decision is rendered, anyone can question it, can criticize it, that’s why there are even what we call a review of the decisions of the SC.”
He, however, acknowledged that “as a practical matter, the majority in the Senate can assert that the issue is now academic and would therefore be reluctant to debate on the quo warranto resolution.”
Drilon conceded the slim chance the resolution would be adopted by the majority. “Sa akin malabo na, while personally I still believe that there is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion on a decision of the SC, the majority may feel that we can express our individual beliefs on the quo warranto but not the Senate as an institution.”
The Minority Leader described the Sereno situation as “a slippery slope” adding that “now, any officer who is subject to impeachment can now be removed through a quo warranto proceeding.”