 |
“Don’t mess with me!”
|
KANGAROO SUPREME COURT
OPINION:
A lawyer-blogger’s view on the quo warranto petition vs Sereno
Ellen
T. Tordesillas
Posted
at Apr 23 2018 06:09 AM
ABS-CBN
News
A
lawyer-friend who goes by the name of “saxnviolins” in my blog sent me a
helpful brief on the petition for quo warranto filed before the Supreme Court
by Solicitor General Jose Calida to oust Chief Justice Maria Lourdes A. Sereno.
Saxnviolins
said had he been invited to be amicus curiae (friend of the Court) on quo
warranto petition, he would have submitted the following opinion:
“The
petition for quo warrranto seeks the ouster of Professor Maria Lourdes Sereno
for being disqualified from appointment to the Supreme Court. In response to
the anticipated issue of whether or not impeachment is the only means to remove
a member of the Supreme Court, the petition states:
The
petition for quo warranto against Respondent should be differentiated from the
impeachment proceedings against her at the House of Representatives. The writ
of quo warranto is being sought to question the validity of her appointment; in
turn, the impeachment complaint accuses her of committing culpable violation of
the Constitution and betrayal of public trust while in office. Stated differently,
the petitioner is seeking her ouster from her office because she did not prove
her integrity as an applicant for the position. The complainant in the
impeachment proceedings wants her removed as the sitting Chief Justice for
impeachable offenses. (Page 11, par. 31).
“The
petition seeks to distinguish between acts performed before the appointment
(quo warranto) and acts performed after appointment (impeachment). There is no
such distinction, however, in the text of the Constitution, which reads:
SECTION
2. 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. All other public officers and employees may be
removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
“Note
that there is no time frame for the prohibited acts as basis for impeachment.
So one may be impeached for said acts (treason, bribery and betrayal of public
trust) even if the acts were committed prior to appointment.
“If
impeachment were to be limited to acts committed ‘while in office’, the
Constitution would have so stated, like Section 248 of the Administrative Code
of the 50s, which used the phrase ‘misconduct in office’ (Arsenio Lacson v.
Mariano Roque, Executive Secretary G.R. No. L-6225 - January 10, 1953). That
phrase was also used in Section 60 of Batas Pambansa 337 (Francisco Lecaroz v.
Hon. Jaime Ferrer G.R. No. 77918 - July 27, 1987).
“Is
there precedent for this interpretation? Yes. The case of Federal Judge Thomas
Porteus, Jr. who was impeached for making false statements about his past to
obtain the office of United States District Court Judge. Article IV of the
Articles of Impeachment states:
In
1994, in connection with his nomination to be a judge of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.,
knowingly made material false statements about his past to both the United
States Senate and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to obtain the
office of United States District Court Judge.
“Judge
Porteus was impeached by a unanimous vote of 423 by the House, and removed by a
vote of 90-6 by the Senate of the United States of America.
“The
petition also implies a distinction because this petition was filed ‘to
question the validity of her appointment’, while impeachment is for the purpose
of removing an impeachable officer for acts committed ‘while in office’. But
what is the purpose of quo warranto proceedings? The authorities are agreed
that quo warranto is the remedy to try the right to an office or franchise and to
oust the holder from its enjoyment…. (Flaviano Lota v. CA G.R. No. L-14803
-June 30, 1961.
“The
term oust means ‘to put out; to eject; to remove or deprive.’ (Black’s Law
Dictionary, 2nd Ed.) So the purpose of this petition is the same; to remove an
occupant from office. But this occupant, as the Constitution states, is
removable by impeachment.
“It
may be argued, as was written by Fr. Ranhilio Aquino, that the Constitution did
not state that impeachment is the only means to remove impeachable officers.
The reverend scholar fails to remember that the specific prevails over the
general. The provisions on impeachment specify the power of Congress to remove
specific officers. The provisions on quo warranto, however, confer a general
power over all officials. The Constitutional provision, therefore, must
prevail, not only because it is specific, but because the Rules of Court, are
subordinate to the highest law of the land.
“The
Supreme Court, has in fact, declared that impeachment is the only means to
remove impeachable officers, when it held:
The
broad power of the New Constitution vests the respondent court [Sandiganbayan]
with jurisdiction over ‘public officers and employees, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations.’ There are exceptions, however,
like constitutional officers, particularly those declared to be removed by
impeachment. Section 2, Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution provides:
Sec.
2 The President, the Members of the Supreme Court, and the Members of the
Constitutional Commissions shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, other
high crimes, or graft and corruption.
Thus,
the above provision proscribes [prohibits] removal from office of the
aforementioned constitutional officers by any other method; otherwise, to allow
a public officer who may be removed solely by impeachment to be charged
criminally while holding his office, would be violative of the clear mandate of
the fundamental law. (A.M. No. 88-4-5433 - April 15, 1988).
“The
above case was interpreting the 1973 Constitution, which did not employ the
term ‘only’, in stating that: ‘The President, the Members of the Supreme Court,
and the Members of the Constitutional Commissions shall be removed from
office….’
“The
petition points to the Rules of Court on the Presidential Electoral Tribunal,
for the basis for the acquisition of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court over one
of its own members, when it states:
Although
the aforecited rules pertain to the President and Vice President, said rules
may be applied by analogy. The Court recognizes the availability of quo
warranto against an impeachable officer. Hence, Respondent cannot claim that as
Chief Justice, she can only be removed by impeachment under Section 2, Article
XI of the Constitution. (Page 11, par. 34).
“That
argument is below the dignity, of even a law student. It is elementary that
jurisdiction is conferred by law (Maricris Dolot v. Hon. Ramon Paje G.R. No.
199199 - August 27, 2013). There is no country where jurisdiction is conferred
‘by analogy’. In the case of the presidential elections, the Constitution
created the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, and conferred on it, power over
‘all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
President or Vice- President,’ The Constitution also granted the Supreme Court,
as Presidential Electoral Tribunal, the power to ‘promulgate its rules for the
purpose’. (Article VII, Section 4).
“The
power to promulgate rules are only ‘for the purpose’ of deciding ‘all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-
President,’ The Constitution does not confer on the Supreme Court the power to
remove one of its own members. The purpose stated by the Constitution, is fatal
to the argument of power by analogy.
“The
Rules cited by the Petition also declares what the PET’s implied powers are, as
follows:
Rule
7. Express and implied powers. - The Tribunal shall exercise all powers
expressly vested in it by the Constitution or by law, and such other powers as
may be inherent, necessary or incidental thereto for the accomplishment of its
purposes and functions. (R6)
“Note
that in the title of Rule 7, the Supreme Court declares that it has Express and
implied powers. Then in the text of Rule 7, it states it is has ‘such other
powers as may be inherent, necessary or incidental thereto for the
accomplishment of its purposes and functions’, mirroring the purposes stated in
the Constitution. So the implied powers stated in the title of Rule 7 are the
inherent powers for the purpose of deciding ‘all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice- President,’
That does not include the function of determining the validity of the
appointment one of its members.
“It
is also axiomatic that what is expressed prevails over what is implied. The
express declaration by the Constitution, and the Rules of the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal, negate any inference of ‘power by analogy’.
“More
damning to the argument of ‘powers by analogy’ is the enumeration of the
inherent (implied) powers under Rule 8:
Rule
8. Inherent powers. - The Tribunal shall have the following inherent powers:
(a)
Preserve and enforce in proceedings before it or before any of its Divisions or
officials acting under its authority;
(b)
Administer or cause to be administered oaths in any contest before it, and in
any order matter where it may be necessary in the exercise of its powers;
(c)
Compel the attendance of witnesses and production of evidence in any contest
before it.
(d)
Compel obedience to its decisions, resolutions, orders and processes;
(e)
Control its processes and amend its decisions, resolutions or orders to make
them conformable to law and justice;
(f)
Authorize a copy of a lost or destroyed pleading or other paper to be filed and
used instead of the original copy thereof, and to restore and supply
deficiencies in its records and proceedings; and
(g)
Promulgate its own rules of procedure and amend or revise the same (R7)
“There
is nothing there regarding the determination of the validity of the appointment
of one of its own members. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. What is
enumerated excludes that which is not enumerated.
“Finally,
the issue of appointments is a political question, left to the political
branches of government. By political question here, we do not mean political in
the street sense of ‘namumulitika’, signifying partisanship. By political
question is meant the wisdom of making a choice – choosing between one
candidate over the other (President and Congress – Commission on Appointments);
choosing between going to war or not (Congress); or choosing between
withdrawing from a treaty or not (President only).
“The
appointment of members of the Supreme Court is a political question, and that
choice is left to the discretion of a political branch (Office of the President).
Were the Supreme Court to invalidate the appointment, it would be supplanting
its judgment for that of the President; a power it has no authority to wield. A
political decision must be exercised by a political branch. It is for that
reason that the framers of the Constitution conferred the power to determine
whether the President made a wise choice or not, on another political branch
(Congress).
“Appointment
is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in
which it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition being that
the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law. If he does,
then the appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others
better qualified who should have been preferred. This is a political question
involving considerations of wisdom which only the appointing authority can
decide. (Luego v. Civil Service Commission; G.R. NO. L-69137 - August 5, 1986)
“Another
reason for the lack of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court over this petition, is
the fact that the Supreme Court has no power to try (determine) facts. It may
rule on findings of fact of trial courts, amending, modifying or reversing
them, in an appeal. But it has no power to make findings of fact in the first instance.
The question of whether an appointee is qualified or not, is a factual
question. In other quo warranto cases, the proceedings are commenced at
tribunals with fact-finding power; either trial courts, or the COMELEC. In the
case of impeachable officers, the Constitution confers the fact-finding power
on the Senate.
“The
Supreme Court may only review the proceedings, when legal questions are
concerned, such as the question of the legality of the subpoena duces tecum
issued by the Senate (Enrile as President Officer) in the impeachment case of
Renato Corona. The Supreme Court issued a TRO on the order of Senator Enrile.
“The
petition strains to confer on itself, a Constitutional issue by citing Funa v.
Villar But Funa ruled on the Constitutional issue of what constitutes a
‘reappointment’. It was not an issue of qualifications of the appointee. The
Supreme Court held:
A
commissioner who resigns after serving in the Commission for less than seven
years is eligible for an appointment to the position of Chairman for the
unexpired portion of the term of the departing chairman. ……
The
appointment of then Commissioner Reynaldo A. Villar to the position of Chairman
of the Commission on Audit to replace Guillermo N. Carague, whose term of
office as such chairman has expired, is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL ……
“The
petition next cites the case of Nacionalista Party v. De Vera. That case ruled
on the Constitutional issue of whether or not the promotion to Chairman of a
sitting COA commissioner, is a ‘reappointment’, which is prohibited by the
Constitution.
“Neither
of the above cases questioned the qualifications of the appointee. Here, there
is no Constitutional issue being presented. The substantive basis of the
petition questions the qualifications of the appointee.
“Professor
Sereno taught full-time, and it is difficult to find a retired RTC judge who
remembers her appearance in court. As a professor, she did not display the
intellectual heft of Justice Serafin Cuevas, Justice Vicente Mendoza, or Professor
Haydee Yorac. I believe, therefore, that there were candidates better qualified
than her. But that belief must yield to my fealty to the Constitution; even if
the incidental beneficiary is a minimally qualified appointee.
“The
Republic has survived Ferdinand Marcos, Gloria Arroyo, and Benigno Aquino III;
all Presidents, with almost limitless power. I am certain that it can survive
the term of an unqualified Chief Justice, especially because the Court, en
banc, can effectively check her actions. But the Republic cannot survive the
erosion of Constitutional boundaries. This shortcut will yield greater mischief
than the good that irregular removal seeks to achieve. One can only point to
the mischief wrought by the removal of Joseph Estrada, for the then, seeming
good of ascension by Gloria Arroyo. That disaster was also occasioned by a
Court with good intentions, but with no fealty to the Constitution.
“For
the above reasons, it is respectfully prayed that the petition for quo warranto
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
Blog:
www.ellentordesillas.com
Email:
Disclaimer:
The views in this blog are those of the blogger and do not necessarily reflect
the views of ABS-CBN Corp.
Law
deans, professors join call for quo warranto dismissal
Kristine
Joy Patag (philstar.com) - May 10, 2018 - 1:58pm
Links:
Former
SC justice: Time to file quo warranto vs Sereno lapsed in 2013
Audrey
Morallo (philstar.com) - April 30, 2018 - 8:47pm
Six
biased justices should inhibit
Links:
Impeachment
case against Sereno weak
Full
text of Supreme Court decision on Sereno ouster
Link:
https://www.rappler.com/nation/202399-full-text-supreme-court-decision-sereno-ouster-tijam-ponencia
Vice-President
Leni Robredo
Links:
Senators
et al.
Link:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/989743/darkest-hour-in-ph-democracy-senators-slam-sc-ruling-vs-sereno
Justice
Leonen denounces “legal abomination”
Link:
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/989609/ouster-ruling-on-sereno-a-legal-abomination-says-sc-justice
Justice
Caguioa exclaims Supreme Court committed seppuku
“without honor”
Justice
Carpio says Supreme Court rewrote the 1987 Constitution
Former
President Aquino
Former
Chief Justice Davide
IBP
Links:
Bishops,
CBCP Official
Links:
Robert
Reyes to Filipinos: ‘Wake up or face death of democracy’
Ateneo
de Manila University President
Links:
Free
Legal Assistance Group
Link:
DLSU
College of Law Dean Jose Manuel Diokno
Link:
A
Supreme Court gone rogue
The
Court, in the wrong
The
Court overreached
Supreme
Court on trial
Judicial
Tyranny
Why
the Supreme Court is wrong: Q & A
***
The
Supreme Court decision to oust the Chief Justice by granting the quo warranto
petition is but another in a long series of suspect rulings poisoned by casuistry,
spanning decades.
In
his May 14, 2018 column, Joel Ruiz Butuyan cites at least three historical
instances in which the Supreme Court twistedly ruled against unambiguously
worded provisions of the 1987 Constitution. See:
It
appears that arrogating to itself the power to rewrite the 1987 Constitution has
become a bad habit for the Supreme Court. Maybe it should be renamed “Supremo”
Court, in the dictatorial sense of the word.
Recently,
the court reversed a “final” 2009 decision against Philippine Airlines or PAL
to the prejudice of former employees. See:
Today,
glaring injustice is perpetrated in the continued incarceration of Senator
Leila de Lima:
Worst
of all, in the works right this very time is a plot to install Bongbong Marcos
as Vice-President by, among others, disenfranchising voters under a newly
promulgated rule to nullify votes that fail to satisfy a grossly unjust 50-percent
shading threshold:
If
the Supreme Court were a circus performer, it would be featured as “the human
pretzel,” sucking in huge crowds by its astonishing feats of contortion.
***
APHORISMS
“In
practice law is not a well-wrought urn but the purveyor of tortuous vagaries.”
“Under
a tyranny the law is misused as an instrument of injustice, persecution,
repression, and oppression.”
“The
rule of law creates, builds, and sustains just societies.”
“Twisted
logic is the tendrils of an evil spirit.”
“Politicization
of the judiciary weakens it, ensuring that those who have less in life will
have even less in law.”
“Intelligence
with integrity is fair-mindedness, without integrity it is venality.”
“Genuine
democracy, which subsists in the democratic values and principles internalized
by the people, is subverted when criminal leaders controvert the laws embodying
the people’s deepest aspirations for freedom from tyranny.”
“A
government of values and principles is degraded by a regime of patronage and
corruption.”
“Democracy
is a work in progress, fascism a work in regress.”
“He
who does not take a stand sits on his rights.”
Link: https://poetryofgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2018/07/politics.html
Link: https://poetryofgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2018/07/politics.html
***
THE WAY FORWARD: DE FACTO REPUDIATION
“When
injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.”—Thomas Jefferson
The
Supreme Court decision to grant the quo warranto petition to oust our Chief
Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is Javellana
vs. Executive Secretary redux. The latter is the notorious case that precluded
any legal challenge to the “constitutional authoritarianism” of the Marcos
dictatorial regime.
The
Supreme Court has arrogated to itself powers of judgment that belong only to
the Senate and assigned to anyone who on a whim files suit, powers that belong
only to Congress.
The
only effective remedy to the patently illegal and unconstitutional Supreme
Court decision to oust the Chief Justice is DE FACTO REPUDIATION of this
decision.
All
opposition power centers and large numbers of the polity must unite in words
and actions to achieve de facto repudiation of the decision.
***
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor
A good time to be alive for
plunderers
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:00 AM September 23, 2017
The so-called “Arroyo doctrine” set forth by the Supreme Court in 2016 is now seen as the best defense available to plunderers with pending cases involving alleged pork barrel scam queen Janet Lim Napoles. That doctrine requires the main plunderer or mastermind to be clearly identified and the principal role he/she played in the scheme of things specified.
Since time immemorial, a charge of conspiracy clearly alleged and proven, was enough to impute the crime committed by one against all participants without any need to specify whether the roles they played were principal or merely supporting. It was that simple. The “act of one is the act of all,” so mastermind or not, it was irrelevant!
In the case of former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the Supreme Court parsed the conspiracy charge to death and concluded that there existed no specific proof that she masterminded the plunder of state lottery funds other than the vague “OK” she wrote on a piece of paper seeking the go-signal her minions needed to set the scam in motion. To the Supreme Court, that marginal note meant nothing. But common sense says no such diversion of some P366 million in public funds would ever have happened without her nod!
The pending plunder charges against former senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, and Bong Revilla involving hundreds of millions in public funds are said to have the same tenor and configuration. With an obviously VIP-friendly Supreme Court, Enrile earlier won bail on the most outlandish grounds: “humanitarian,” a reasoning never before applied to ordinary mortals. The “Arroyo doctrine” had not yet formed part of “jurisprudence” then.
Estrada is the first beneficiary of that doctrine. He is now out on bail (due to “insufficiency of evidence”) and free as a bird. With the Sandiganbayan taking its cue from the Supreme Court, is there really still any doubt about the final outcome of the useless trial? Revilla is now rushing his own bail bid. Not to be outdone, Napoles is preparing her own, also buoyed by the Supreme Court’s dictum that plunder can only be committed by a public official. Being a private citizen, and without any public official being alleged to be the “scammer in chief” with specificity, she can only be charged with much lesser (bailable) offenses.
A good day for all plunderers! Tuloy ang ligaya! How did this miserable state of our justice system ever come to pass? “A legal black hole,” the Inquirer’s Sept. 20 editorial (“The honorable Janet Napoles”) noted quite aptly. Needless to say, the supermajority of the justices who concocted that “Arroyo doctrine” were appointed by—who else?—former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo! Did they decide her case “with the cold neutrality of an impartial judge”? Tell it to the Marines!
ROGELIO S. CANDELARIO, rodscan888@gmail.com
Link: http://opinion.inquirer.net/107335/good-time-alive-plunderers#ixzz5HDh1myjx
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:00 AM September 23, 2017
The so-called “Arroyo doctrine” set forth by the Supreme Court in 2016 is now seen as the best defense available to plunderers with pending cases involving alleged pork barrel scam queen Janet Lim Napoles. That doctrine requires the main plunderer or mastermind to be clearly identified and the principal role he/she played in the scheme of things specified.
Since time immemorial, a charge of conspiracy clearly alleged and proven, was enough to impute the crime committed by one against all participants without any need to specify whether the roles they played were principal or merely supporting. It was that simple. The “act of one is the act of all,” so mastermind or not, it was irrelevant!
In the case of former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the Supreme Court parsed the conspiracy charge to death and concluded that there existed no specific proof that she masterminded the plunder of state lottery funds other than the vague “OK” she wrote on a piece of paper seeking the go-signal her minions needed to set the scam in motion. To the Supreme Court, that marginal note meant nothing. But common sense says no such diversion of some P366 million in public funds would ever have happened without her nod!
The pending plunder charges against former senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, and Bong Revilla involving hundreds of millions in public funds are said to have the same tenor and configuration. With an obviously VIP-friendly Supreme Court, Enrile earlier won bail on the most outlandish grounds: “humanitarian,” a reasoning never before applied to ordinary mortals. The “Arroyo doctrine” had not yet formed part of “jurisprudence” then.
Estrada is the first beneficiary of that doctrine. He is now out on bail (due to “insufficiency of evidence”) and free as a bird. With the Sandiganbayan taking its cue from the Supreme Court, is there really still any doubt about the final outcome of the useless trial? Revilla is now rushing his own bail bid. Not to be outdone, Napoles is preparing her own, also buoyed by the Supreme Court’s dictum that plunder can only be committed by a public official. Being a private citizen, and without any public official being alleged to be the “scammer in chief” with specificity, she can only be charged with much lesser (bailable) offenses.
A good day for all plunderers! Tuloy ang ligaya! How did this miserable state of our justice system ever come to pass? “A legal black hole,” the Inquirer’s Sept. 20 editorial (“The honorable Janet Napoles”) noted quite aptly. Needless to say, the supermajority of the justices who concocted that “Arroyo doctrine” were appointed by—who else?—former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo! Did they decide her case “with the cold neutrality of an impartial judge”? Tell it to the Marines!
ROGELIO S. CANDELARIO, rodscan888@gmail.com
Link: http://opinion.inquirer.net/107335/good-time-alive-plunderers#ixzz5HDh1myjx
Examples of our Kangaroo Supreme Court abound.
Aphorisms – Credits:
ReplyDeleteThe Penmen Review (April 10, 2017)
Cacti Fur (November 29, 2017)
The Penmen Review (October 16, 2017)
Cacti Fur (April 25, 2018)
Gonzalinho
From Dean Diokno of DLSU-Law
ReplyDeleteWE DISSENT.
The ouster of the Chief Justice through the erroneous quo warranto shortcut petition is unconstitutional.
But more than that, it has far reaching effects. Judicial independence is slayed. Our democracy is in peril. Monopoly of power in the Executive without checks and balance is practically complete. Dissent even in traditional forms are shot down. Those who stand in the way of government policy and fancy are waylaid.
As members of the bar we are duty bound, under oath, to be dispensers of justice and protect the “rule of law.” Our reason for being is put to question. We are being forced to relearn or unlearn what we studied or taught in law school.
The Decision revolts against norms we hold dear. It is time we stand up.
The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), in collaboration and coordination with other individual lawyers and law groups, is calling on members of the legal profession, law students, and court workers, to a day of indignation. It is time our voices are heard even outside the courtrooms. We will move for constitutional salvation by uniting and making our voices loud and clear.
Date: 15 May 2018
Assembly Time: 9:30 am
Where: In front of the Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Manila (parallel simultaneous activities in regional and city courts are encouraged outside Manila)
Please come in your court attire. We will be providing black ribbons we could wear as arm bands during the event both as a sign of protest and pleading.
Gonzalinho
OPINION: ON THE OUSTER OF CHIEF JUSTICE: SERENO SERVED WITH HONOR AND COMPETENCE
ReplyDeleteHer legacy is an unimpeachable reputation, and a record of leadership marked by changes that have and will continue to enhance the judiciary and the legal profession
By Agnes Maranan
Rappler.com
Published 5:08 PM, May 15, 2018
Updated 5:08 PM, May 15, 2018
Her decisions are thoroughly researched; well written. Her division has a high (possibly highest) monthly case disposition rate, and not minute resolutions but decisions on the merits.
Under her leadership, every courtroom has a computer and printer, and open court orders are dictated immediately after a hearing, with all lawyers able (and required) to get their copies of the orders within minutes after your hearing ends.
I have seen judges at first struggle and sweat over this procedure when it was first implemented; I have seen these same judges becoming more at ease with the rule, able to dictate their orders clearly, succinctly, and competently.
The strict rules on pre-trial, judicial affidavits, morning and afternoon hearings. The concept of continuous and speedy trials has been in the rules books since I was a student decades ago. Under CJ Sereno, these rules were enforced. And while practitioners moaned and groaned at no longer being able to litigate at a more relaxed pace, for the litigants themselves, what a relief for them to see their cases move swiftly.
These were the changes that Chief Justice Sereno implemented which I personally witnessed.
…I will not belabor the demerits of the quo warranto decision ousting her. Every one knows the decision was wrong. Everyone has already given his/her two bits on the possible motivation behind that decision, whether personal ill-will, or political pressure.
Some judges and justices have and will go down judicial history with ignominious reputations; they lose every “friend” the New York minute after they step down from the bench. They are the profession’s jokes and clowns, and we gleefully sneer at them when they turn in their judge’s license plates.
Not Chief Justice Sereno. Her legacy is an unimpeachable reputation, and a record of leadership marked by changes that have and will continue to enhance the judiciary and the legal profession.
It is an honor to have been a practitioner with her at the helm. – Rappler.com
Atty Agnes H. Maranan has been in law practice since 1990. She graduated in 1989 from the University of the Philippines College of Law (Dean’s Medalist), and has been a Senior Partner at the River Santos & Maranan Law Offices since 1992. She is a regular Lecturer for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Series organized by the University of the Philippines Law Center.
Link: https://www.rappler.com/views/imho/202556-maria-lourdes-sereno-served-philippines-supreme-court-honor-competence
Gonzalinho
CHARTER CLEAR IMPEACHMENT ONLY WAY TO REMOVE SERENO: FRAMER
ReplyDeleteChristian V. Esguerra, ABS-CBN News
Posted at May 15 2018 03:53 PM | Updated as of May 16 2018 12:12 AM
MANILA—The Supreme Court ruling banishing Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno went against the intent of the constitution that such official can only be removed through impeachment, one of the charter’s framers said Tuesday.
Part of the justification to get rid of Sereno, a vocal critic of human rights abuses under President Rodrigo Duterte, was the constitutional provision saying members of the Supreme Court “may be removed from office on impeachment.”
This language in Article XI, Section 2 of the constitution “does not foreclose a quo warranto action against impeachment officers,” the majority decision said.
But lawyer Christian Monsod, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, said the same provision distinguished between impeachable officers and “all other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.”
The subsequent sentence, he said, was suggested by fellow commissioner Regalado Maambong because “removal by impeachment is supposed to be an extraordinary and more difficult way of removing these high officials.”
ARROGANCE
“Commissioner Maambong justified that insertion by saying that the constitution should be clear on who can be removed as ‘provided by law’ and those that can only be removed by impeachment,” Monsod told ABS-CBN News.
Monsod headed the committee on the accountability of public officers, which drafted the provision on impeachment.
In removing Sereno by granting a petition questioning her qualifications, the Supreme Court ruled that a quo warranto case could still be filed by the state even after a year “from the cause of such action.”
Monsod described as “specious” the solicitor general’s position that the state had the “imprescriptible right” to file a quo warranto petition under the principle that “no time runs against the king.”
“That is the lowest kind of reasoning and a blatant exhibition of arrogance,” he said.
“I’m very sorry to say this that the Supreme Court chose to abdicate its role as the last rampart in the protection of rights against state abuse.”
Link: https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/05/15/18/charter-clear-impeachment-only-way-to-remove-sereno-framer
Gonzalinho
SERENO OUSTER RULING A ‘SLIPPERY SLOPE’ TO AUTHORITARIANISM: CHARTER FRAMER
ReplyDeleteABS-CBN News
Posted at May 16 2018 09:13 AM
MANILA - One of the framers of the 1987 Constitution warns about a “slippery slope to authoritarianism”after the Supreme Court disqualified Maria Lourdes Sereno as Chief Justice, a move that he believes weakened the government’s checks and balances.
Lawyer Christian Monsod explained that the Constitution is clear that a Chief Justice can only be removed through impeachment. The high court ruling, he said, did not only go against the charter but also gives “dangerous powers” to future Solicitor Generals.
“The decision of the case somehow did the opposite of what the intent and design is for removing an official by impeachment. It’s a weakening of checks and balances and the compromising of judicial independence,” he told ANC Wednesday.
…“You cannot examine this decision without looking at the context of this decision and the context is what happening in country today is political. We’re in a slippery slope towards authoritarianism,” Monsod added.
He said the country is already heading towards authoritarianism when the high court ruled in favor of the burial of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos at the Heroes’ cemetery, and of the proclamation and extension of martial law in Mindanao.
Link: http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/05/16/18/sereno-ouster-ruling-a-slippery-slope-to-authoritarianism-charter-framer
Gonzalinho
FRONTAL ASSAULT
ReplyDeleteInquirer.net
05:01 AM May 16, 2018
The Supreme Court’s unprecedented and nefarious removal of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno constitutes a frontal assault on human rights protection and democratic rule.
The high court, by an 8-6 vote, approved a government-filed petition questioning the validity of Sereno’s appointment. But Sereno’s ouster was about much more. Last month, President Duterte declared Sereno an “enemy” and called for her impeachment over her criticism of his murderous “war on drugs” and other abusive policies.
Sereno, 57, is just the latest in a growing list of institutions and individuals — including Philippine media outlets and United Nations officials — that have been vilified by Mr. Duterte for seeking accountability for human rights violations. Mr. Duterte has sought to quash any meaningful inquiries into alleged crimes committed by police and their agents in the war on drugs that has killed thousands — a campaign the President has openly endorsed.
Sereno’s ouster also kicks open the door for wanton removal of members of other constitutional bodies, such as the Commission on Human Rights. Ultimately, the rejection of constitutional checks and balances concentrates power in the hands of Mr. Duterte and his allies, posing the greatest danger to democracy in the Philippines since the Marcos dictatorship.
CARLOS H. CONDE, researcher, Asia Division, Human Rights Watch
Link: http://opinion.inquirer.net/113207/frontal-assault
Gonzalinho
CAGUIOA SEES NO COMPARISON BETWEEN CORONA, SERENO EXITS: HE COULDN’T EXPLAIN UNEXPLAINED WEALTH, SHE MERELY FAILED TO FILE SALN
ReplyDeletePolitiko
Last updated May 15, 2018
Much has been said about how former Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno’s ouster from the Supreme Court paralleled that of her predecessor, the late Chief Justice Renato Corona: both were ejected from their posts due to troubles with their statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN).
But Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa cites a big difference between the two: Corona was impeached and convicted because of his failure to explain his wealth while Sereno was disqualified in a quo warranto case for failure to file her SALNs multiple times from way back when she was a University of the Philippines professor.
In his dissenting opinion on the 8-6 vote disqualifying Sereno, Caguioa said: “(Corona) was charged with betrayal of public trust and/or culpable violation of the Constitution for (1) failing to disclose his SALN, (2) failure to include certain properties in the SALN, and (3) alleged hidden wealth. These charges have not been leveled against the respondent. She is merely accused of not filing her SALNs.”
“Chief Justice Corona was convicted because he had undeclared dollar and peso deposits which were manifestly out of proportion to his lawful income and he failed to provide any explanation on how he obtained such funds. Thus, the case of Chief Justice Corona correctly applied the rule on SALN requirement when it delved into the real issue of curtailing the acquisition of unexplained wealth,” he added.
Link: http://politics.com.ph/ex-senate-president-angara-gave-free-tutorials-to-colleagues-recto-says/
Gonzalinho
DAVIDE: 8 ANTI-SERENO JUSTICES MAY BE IMPEACHED
ReplyDeleteBy: Jodee A. Agoncillo, Vince F. Nonato - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 07:00 AM May 18, 2018
Retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. on Thursday said the eight Supreme Court justices who voted to grant the quo warranto petition brought by the government’s top lawyer to invalidate the 2012 appointment of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno may face impeachment.
The Constitution provides that the Chief Justice may be removed from office through impeachment in Congress, but Associate Justices Noel Tijam, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Samuel Martires, Andres Reyes Jr., Alexander Gesmundo, Lucas Bersamin, Diosdado Peralta and Francis Jardeleza voted on May 11 to grant the quo warranto petition brought by Solicitor General Jose Calida.
“The mere act of voting to oust the Chief Justice in gross and culpable violation of the Constitution will itself be a basis to charge them of an impeachable offense—culpable violation of the Constitution,” Davide told a forum on Charter change at Ateneo de Manila University.
Link: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/991962/davide-8-anti-sereno-justices-may-be-impeached#ixzz5G0R7YqXm
Gonzalinho
ATENEO CALLS FOR SUPPORT TO OVERTURN SERENO OUSTER
ReplyDelete‘May pagkakataon pa na itama ang pagkakamaling ito,’ says Ateneo de Manila University president Father Jose Ramon Villarin, SJ
Paterno Esmaquel II @paterno_ii
Rappler.com
Published 7:20 AM, May 18, 2018
Updated 7:20 AM, May 18, 2018
MANILA, Philippines – Ateneo de Manila University president Father Jose Ramon Villarin, SJ, called for support to overturn the ouster of former chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno through a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court (SC).
“May pagkakataon pa na itama ang pagkakamaling ito (There is still time to correct this mistake),” Villarin said in a memo to the Ateneo community on Thursday, May 17.
Villarin urged the Ateneo community to convince the SC and the Filipino people to support the motion for reconsideration to be filed with the High Court in the next few days.
He also told them to persuade Congress to assert its right to subject Sereno to impeachment proceedings.
“Binatikos ng ating Panginoong Hesus ang mga Pariseo at Eskriba sa kanilang bulag at makitid na pagsunod sa letra ng batas. Ang tamang pagsunod sa batas ay pagsunod sa letra at diwa nito. Sundan lang natin ang tamang proseso ayon sa pinakadiwa ng batas upang hindi tayo malihis ng landas,” Villarin said.
(Our Lord Jesus criticized the Pharisees and Scribes for their blind and narrow obedience to the letter of the law. The right way of heeding the law is following its letter and its spirit. Let us follow the right process according to the spirit of the law so that we will not take the wrong path.)
Link: https://www.rappler.com/nation/202793-ateneo-president-statement-sereno-ouster-quo-warranto?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1526604656
Gonzalinho
LAWMAKER SAYS
ReplyDeleteSC JUSTICES DEFIED CHARTER FOR ACCUSER, WITNESS, JUDGE ROLES IN SERENO OUSTER
Published May 20, 2018 9:38am
By ERWIN COLCOL, GMA News
The Supreme Court justices who voted to favor the quo warranto petition against ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno violated the Constitution when they acted as her “accuser, witness and judge” in the case.
Akbayan party-list Representative Tom Villarin made this remark on Sunday as he explained the content of the impeachment complaints he is intending to file against the eight magistrates.
In a Super Radyo dzBB interview, Villarin clarified that the specific acts of the justices will be assailed in the impeachment complaints, and not their decision on the quo warranto petition.
Supreme Court justices who voted for the grant of the quo warranto petition include Justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Samuel Martires, Noel Tijam, Andres Reyes Jr. and Alexander Gesmundo.
Seven of them —De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Jardeleza, Tijam, Martires and Reyes —testified during the House Committee on Justice’s impeachment proceedings against Sereno.
“There was culpable violation because it’s very clear na yung kanilang ginawa was not to uphold the Constitution, sila yung nagiging accuser,” Villarin said.
“They violated the due process na clause in the Constitution against Chief Justice Sereno when they became the accuser, the witness and they became the judge,” he added.
Villarin pointed out that that when these justices attended the House justice panel hearings, they acknowledged that impeachment is the only mode through which an impeachable official like Sereno can be removed from office.
“Ibig sabihin, kinilala nila yung proseso na ‘yun. But in the end, through their decision, they rejected that process,” he said.
Moreover, Villarin said the justices committed culpable violation of the Constitution when the favored the quo warranto petition “on their personal biases against the Chief Justice [Sereno],” failing to uphold their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution.
“There was [also] culpable violation because they usurped the power of Congress over the impeachment process. And specific to that likewise, ni-usurp din nila yung constitutional duty of the Judicial and Bar Council to determine who would be qualified for justice of the Supreme Court,” he added.
Aside from culpable violation of the Constitution, Villarin said the justices also betrayed public trust when there was “willful negligence” on their part on their duty to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution.
“Ang nangyari, yung kanilang personal manifest bias against the Chief Justice ang nangibabaw. And it resulted in serious, irreparable damage to our judicial system,” he said.
“Ang betrayal of public trust kasi, hindi siya criminal action but with that action, it has resulted to serious, irreparable damage,” he added.
Villarin is intending the file impeachment complaints before Congress goes on sine die break this June “in deference to the motion for reconsideration that will be filed by the Chief Justice.”
He said there are also members of the House supermajority who talk to him to express their interest in the filing of the complaints.
“Even if the numbers are not on our side, but we believe this is the proper and logical move na gawin natin,” he said. —LBG, GMA News
Link: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/653971/justices-defy-charter-for-accuser-witness-judge-role-in-sereno-ouster/story/
Gonzalinho
MAY 30, 2018 STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS
ReplyDelete“Philippines: Supreme Court decision removing its Chief Justice contributes to the deterioration of the rule of law”
Link:
https://www.facebook.com/CoalitionForJustice.PH/photos/pcb.216441338960598/216441298960602/?type=3
Gonzalinho
AP INTERVIEW: UN EXPERT SAYS MANILA’S JUDICIARY UNDER ATTACK
ReplyDeleteby Jim Gomez | AP June 1
The Washington Post
MANILA, Philippines — The unprecedented expulsion of the Philippine chief justice after the president lambasted her in public is an attack on judicial independence that could imperil the country’s democracy, a U.N. expert warned.
U.N. Rapporteur Diego Garcia-Sayan, who looks into threats to the independence of judges and lawyers worldwide, said he has sent questions to the Philippine government about the circumstances leading to the May 11 ouster of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno from the high court and expects a response within 60 days.
Sereno’s ouster has generated “a climate of intimidation” in the 15-member tribunal and in other ranks of the judiciary, he said in an interview Thursday. He added that there was no formal U.N. investigation into her removal but that he has to speak up when threats to judicial independence are reported anywhere.
It’s the latest alarm raised by U.N. special investigators about President Rodrigo Duterte’s nearly two-year rule. Other U.N. rapporteurs have raised concerns over his crackdown on illegal drugs which has left thousands of mostly poor suspects dead and his threats against human rights defenders.
“If the chief justice can be easily expelled, everybody would have to dance with the same music and with that, the independence of the judiciary is finished and that opens the route of abuse of power,” said Garcia-Sayan, who visited Manila to attend a conference.
“When independence of justice is destroyed, checks and balances are finished,” he said. “Historically, that always has led to human rights violations, to corruption and to abuse of power because the checks and balances are essential to control temptations that individuals have to absolute power.”
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/ap-interview-un-expert-says-manilas-judiciary-under-attack/2018/06/01/306f7380-6595-11e8-81ca-bb14593acaa6_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a4faa219df69
Gonzalinho
SERENO CAMP: SC CAN’T IGNORE THE FACT THAT SHE FILED HER UP SALNS
ReplyDeleteBy: Faye Orellana - Reporter / @FMOrellanaINQ
INQUIRER.net / 03:14 PM June 03, 2018
Ousted Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno listens to a question from the media during a news conference following her ouster by the highest court Friday, May 11, 2018 in Manila, Philippines. (AP Photo/Bullit Marquez)
The camp of ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno has accused the Supreme Court (SC) of “overlooking” the fact that Sereno had already submitted her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs).
Lawyer Carlo Cruz, one of Sereno’s spokespersons, urged the SC to take a second look into the filing of Sereno’s 12 SALNs prior to her appointment as the chief magistrate.
He said that the high court could not disregard the fact that Sereno had filed all her SALNs while she was a law professor at the University of the Philippines (UP).
“The SC cannot just ignore the fact that CJ Sereno had actually filed her UP SALNs,” Cruz said in a statement.
“With due respect to the SC, hindi po ibig sabihin na hindi nakapag-submit ng SALN ay wala nang integridad,” he added.
(Not submitting a SALN doesn’t mean the person doesn’t have integrity.)
Before Sereno was ousted as the chief justice of the country, Solicitor General Jose Calida argued that Sereno had failed to prove her integrity as an applicant for the top position of the judiciary.
Calida was the one who filed the quo warranto petition that received an 8-6 votes from the other justices of SC, making Sereno the first chief justice to get ousted without undergoing an impeachment trial.
Cruz asserted that the SC’s quo warranto decision “is contrary to its own rulings pertaining to SALNs, particularly on its pronouncement that failure to file SALN is not basis for removal from office.”
According to Cruz, it has been the ruling of the high court to use SALN as a tool to prevent corruption in the office and only remove an official found guilty of misdeclaration.
Sereno’s spokesperson said that no official “was sanctioned for non-filing of SALN alone” and with no alleged misdeclaration of wealth.
“Naipakita sa mga desisyon ng SC, na consistent naman, wala namang tinanggal sa pwesto dahil sa non-submission of SALN. Binigyan lang o pinatawan ng karampatang parusa o penalty pero removal hindi kasama ‘yun sa non-submission of SALN,” he said.
(The decisions of the SC consistently show that no one has been ousted due to their non-submission of SALN. They were only given a penalty; the non-submission of SALN is not part of an official’s removal.)
Cruz added that during Sereno’s years in UP Law, she was not fully required to submit her SALN in some periods given that the ex-chief justice was on leave or did not receive compensation.
All administrative responsibilities, accountabilities, and the filing of SALNs of Sereno have already been cleared by the UP Human Resources Development Office (HRDO), particularly on the occasions dated on March 30, 2000, Nov. 1, 2003, and June 1, 2006, Cruz noted.
He added that the UP HRDO or any offices of the said university did not instruct Sereno to file specific documents or to revise the SALNs that she had already filed.
Citing the motion for reconsideration that Sereno recently filed before the SC, Cruz said that Sereno argued that “her repeated filing of her SALNs shows that her ‘intent, plan and habit as a UP professor was to religiously file her SALNs.’”
Link: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/996970/sereno-camp-chief-justice-up-saln-assets-liabilities-net-worth-carlo-cruz
Gonzalinho
Duterte is stacking the Supreme Court in order to replace Leni Robredo with Bongbong Marcos in the position of Vice-President, a High Court outcome in the electoral contest case that Duterte seeks to protect himself from prosecution and conviction in case he has to step down in 2022.
ReplyDeleteBongbong will possibly become president—Duterte will step down—and stack the administration with Bongbong henchmen, besides plundering the treasury and buying off—or killing and incarcerating—anyone who opposes the grand conspiracy.
Another reason for stacking the Supreme Court is to install the Federalism constitution in the instance that any case concerning it is brought before the High Court, which will also protect Duterte from prosecution and conviction because the new constitution will extend Duterte's hold on power, whether in the position of president or something else.
The quo warranto ruling illegally and unjustly removing the Chief Justice from her position is just another step in the undisguised plot to terrorize, plunder, and through dictatorial means decimate the nation.
Gonzalinho
Photo courtesy of Australian Vacation - Adelaide and Kangaroo Island
ReplyDeletePhoto link: http://www.alanwolf.org/Vacation/page_03.htm
Gonzalinho
‘LEAVE THE COURT ALONE’?
ReplyDeletePhilippine Daily Inquirer / 05:09 AM September 11, 2018
Last week, speaking at her first flag ceremony at the Supreme Court as the new leader of the judiciary, Chief Justice Teresita de Castro warned both critics and the two other branches of government to leave the Court alone.
At first glance, her words seem to be a restatement of conventional wisdom.
“The other members of the coequal and independent branches of the government should understand that based on our constitutional order, the decisions reached by the justices of the Supreme Court whether unanimously or by majority vote, must be respected,” she said. “We should be left alone to decide the fate of this institution without interference,” adding: “So we demand respect from the other members of the coequal and independent branches of the government.”
Could she have been referring to the obvious attempts by the President of the Philippines and the previous Speaker of the House of Representatives to intimidate the Court and its previous chief justice, Maria Lourdes Sereno?
It does not look like Speaker Gloria Arroyo will demand that De Castro pay a courtesy call on her, in the same way that Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez tried to get Sereno to pay a courtesy call on him.
…With [De Castro] at the helm, even if only for less than two months, and with a majority of justices consistently voting in favor of the President’s legal positions, it does not look like a major official of either political branch will attempt again to browbeat the Court in public.
So what could De Castro have been referring to?
If anything, it was she who led the Court into a trap, the anti-Sereno hearings in the House, where the institutional dignity of the Court was greatly diminished.
…“I would like to say,” she also said, “that people outside would like to judge us from what they see from afar. But it is us the justices and the employees and officials of the Court who know what is happening inside the Supreme Court. And we should be left alone to decide for ourselves.”
There is no question that the members of the Court must reach decisions by themselves. Any attempt by any official of the executive or legislative branches of government, or indeed of any outside party, to influence the decision-making of the Court outside of the legal processes is illegal and unethical.
There is a wisdom to the deliberate design of the judiciary as a nonpolitical branch of government.
But is this what De Castro meant?
To be continued
‘LEAVE THE COURT ALONE’?
ReplyDeletePhilippine Daily Inquirer / 05:09 AM September 11, 2018
Continued
The Court, of course, can never be left completely alone; the constitutional system of checks and balances assures that, with the executive wielding appointing power over its members, and the legislative branch allocating its budget, subject to the fiscal autonomy guarantee given to the judiciary by the Constitution.
What De Castro apparently refers to is public perception of Court decisions (“people outside would like to judge us”) and then contrasts that with insider knowledge (“it is us… who know what is happening inside”). Then she concludes by returning to her theme: “And we should be left alone to decide for ourselves.”
It seems what De Castro is really getting at is the undue, unaccounted or unmeasured influence of public opinion on judicial decisions.
In sum: People outside the Court judge the justices by what they see “from afar.” They should instead judge the Court by how “the justices and the employees and officials” decide.
This is a plea easy enough to understand, but at its core is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Court and the rest of the judiciary in the democratic project.
The Court must decide according to “facts and the law,” that is true. But both the facts and the law must reflect reality. It is eminently the role of the public to impress this reality on the decision-making of the Court.
The justices can facilitate this process by observing the principle of transparency as much as possible; or they can ignore it altogether.
But there’s no escaping the pressure of public opinion; that’s democracy.
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/115989/leave-court-alone#ixzz5RPRVUekc
Decisions of the Supreme Court, besides the conduct and actions of its members, should be subject to scrutiny and debate by the public at large. We are, after all, supposed to be a working democracy, holding the highest officials of government accountable. Yet, if anything, scrutiny of and debate about the Supreme Court is lacking in the public forum. How many, we might remark, pore over Supreme Court oral arguments and written decisions to take issue with their argumentation or highlight their flaws? We have a very long way to go in this country.
Gonzalinho
SERENO OUSTER WAS LOWEST POINT OF SC IN RECENT YEARS: CARPIO
ReplyDeleteABS-CBN News
Posted at Oct 31 2019 08:48 AM | Updated as of Oct 31 2019 11:51 AM
MANILA - The ouster of Maria Lourdes Sereno as chief justice was the lowest point of the Supreme Court in recent years, according to retired Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.
In May 2018, Sereno was removed as top magistrate after the high court granted a quo warranto petition seeking to nullify her appointment.
Carpio described the case as a “very novel approach” which he said he did not agree with. “I said the only way you can remove a sitting justice of the Supreme Court is through impeachment,” he said.
Sereno, the first woman who became top magistrate, was the country's second chief magistrate to be removed from office under the 1987 Constitution.
In 2012, the Senate sitting as an impeachment court ousted her predecessor, Renato Corona for failure to fully disclose his wealth.
When asked which was a lower point for the Supreme Court between Sereno's removal and Corona's impeachment, Carpio chose the former.
“The impeachment of CJ Corona was done by the Senate and that is in accordance with the law. It was an exercise of the constitutional power of the Senate, they are the disciplining authority when it comes to the justices of the court. It was not our decision, it was the decision of the political body entrusted by the constitution to make that decision,” he said.
“Between the two, it’s the Sereno case because the Corona case was done by the proper body entrusted by the Constitution.”
See: https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/10/31/19/sereno-ouster-was-lowest-point-of-sc-in-recent-years-carpio
Gonzalinho