SOLICITOR General Jose C. Calida has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to stand pat on its decision issued last month ousting Chief Justice Maria Lourdes A. Sereno from her post after finding merit to the petition for quo warranto that he filed.
In his 78-page comment, Calida stated that Sereno’s motion for reconsideration should be dismissed, since it is merely based on the same arguments she had raised in her original defense.
He also denied Sereno’s claim that she was deprived of her right to due process due to the refusal of six associate justices, whom she accused of being biased against her, to inhbit from participating in the deliberation and resolution of the quo warranto petition.
Calida said that there is no basis in Sereno’s motion to reiterate her call for the inhibition of Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza and Noel Tijam, as he explained that the Internal Rules of the SC on inhibition did not mention testifying in the House hearing as among the grounds for inhibition.
The above named associate justices testified against Sereno in the impeachment hearings conducted by the House of Representatives.
Calida said Sereno was also afforded due process and was given the chance to present her side during the oral arguments and in the pleadings and motions she submitted to the Court, and that the participation of the said justices whose recusal she earlier sought did not violate her right to due process.
“Respondent’s claim that she was not heard by an impartial tribunal is, therefore, based merely on speculation and surmise. She has no clear and convincing evidence to show bias on the part of some members of the Court,” he added.
Contrary to Sereno’s claim that she can only be removed through impeachment proceedings, Calida said the Constitution actually does not exclude quo warranto as a remedy to oust an ineligible impeachable officer.
The chief government counsel explained that a quo warranto petition challenges a public officer’s eligibility to hold public office and that the framers of the Constitution did not contemplate ineligibility as an impeachable offense.
Likewise, Calida agreed with the SC that its decision take cognizance of the quo warranto petition despite ongoing impeachment proceedings against Sereno did not violate the principle of separation of powers of the three branches of the government.
He said the Court was merely exercising its power to resolve a legal controversy.
“A quo warranto is an action against the usurpation of a public office or position, which is under the court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court correctly ruled that its assumption of jurisdiction over the present action for quo warranto is not violative of separation of powers,” he said.
In the end, Calida said Sereno has only herself to blame for her ouster, as she failed to file her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) as required by law when she was still with the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law.
“Because the failure to file SALNs is a ground for the removal of any public officer, she should not have been considered as having proven integrity when she applied for the position of Chief Justice in 2012. No one is exempted from complying with the law,” Calida said.
In its decision, the SC said Sereno’s failure to submit her SALNs as a UP College of Law professor would mean her integrity was not established at the time of her application to the top SC post, making her ineligible to hold the chief justice position.
In her motion for reconsideration, Sereno maintained that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and resolve the quo warranto petition filed by Calida, which sought the nullification of her appointment as Chief Justice.
Being an impeachable officer, Sereno insisted that she can only be removed through impeachment proceedings by the Senate acting as the impeachment court.
Sereno argued that the nullification of her appointment through the quo warranto petition is null and void, as it was rendered in violation of her right to due process to the refusal of her six colleagues to inhibit from the case.
In its May 11 ruling, the Court held that Sereno should have been disqualified for the Chief Justice post for engaging in private practice of profession while in government service; for representing after her resignation from the UP in 2006, she was engaged, full time, in private practice, although documents would show that she was engaged as counsel by the government in the arbitration proceedings against the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc., builder of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3; for stating in her personal data sheet that she was deputy commissioner of the Commission on Human Rights, only to later claim that it was only a functional title; and for committing tax fraud when she failed to truthfully declare her income.