The Supreme Court (SC) en banc, in a landmark ruling made on Friday, May 11, voted 8-6 favoring Solicitor General Jose C. Calida’s quo warranto petition, voiding the appointment of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, according to court spokesperson Atty. Theodore O. Te.
Mr. Te, citing the dispositive portion of the decision penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, told reporters in a press briefing organized minutes after the court’s special en banc session, “(Ms. Sereno) is found disqualified from and hereby adjudged guilty of exercising the office of the Chief Justice.”
He added: “Accordingly, Sereno is ousted and excluded therefrom.”
Mr. Calida welcomed the decision, saying in a press statement, “the Supreme Court Decision ousting Maria Lourdes Sereno augurs well for the country as it preserves the stability and integrity of the Judiciary. This Decision is the epitome of its exercise of judicial independence.”
“The position of the Chief Justice is declared vacant and the Judicial Bar Council is directed to commence the application and nomination process,” Mr. Te pointed out.
Mr. Te stressed, “this decision is immediately executory without need of further action from the Court.”
“(Ms. Sereno) is ordered to show cause within ten days from receipt hereof why she should not be sanctioned for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct for transgressing the sub judice rule and for casting aspersions and ill motives to the Members of the Supreme Court,” he added.
The justices who concurred with Mr. Tijam’s decision to grant the petition were Associate Justices Teresita L. De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Francis H. Jardeleza, Samuel R. Martires, Noel G. Tijam, Andres B. Reyes, Jr., and Alexander G. Gesmundo.
Meanwhile, those who dissented were Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Mariano C. Del Castillo, Estela M. Perlas Bernabe, Marvic F. Leonen, and Alfredo S. Caguioa.
In the same decision, the court voted 9-5, ruling that it was indeed the proper remedy, with the Justices maintaining their previous votes except for Mr. Velasco who added to the concurring list.
Mr. Calida submitted his petition, which he described as the “proper remedy” to Ms. Sereno’s case, on March 5 which accused the top magistrate of failing to completely submit her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) as a requirement for the post, only four days after the top magistrate was directed by her peers in the high court to take an indefinite leave on March 1.
The palace agreed with the decision, with presidential spokesperson Harry L. Roque saying, “let us respect (the SC’s) decision granting the quo warranto petition as the proper remedy and the quo warranto petition ruling against Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno” as “the High Court has spoken.”
The former top magistrate told a crowd of supporters gathered outside the SC premises at Taft Avenue, “walo po ang dapat bumoto sa kaso ng quo warranto dahil ang anim ay dapat nag-inhibit ayon sa rules ng compulsory inhibition (only eight justices should have voted in the quo warranto case as the other six should have inhibited according to the rules of compulsory inhibition.)” She was referring to Justices De Castro, Tijam, Bersamin, Jardeleza, Martires, and Peralta who she claimed showed bias towards her.
She added: “Ito po ay una sa ating kasaysayan ng inalis ng mayorya ng Korte Suprema ang isa kanilang samahan (This is a first time in our history a sitting justice from the Supreme Court was removed by their peers.)”
Several opposition senators have expressed their disapproval with the SC’s ruling, with Senate Minority Leader Franklin M. Drilon saying in a press statement, “a quo warranto proceeding is not the proper, legal, and constitutional way to remove an erring impeachable office.
Two others, Paolo “Bam” A. Aquino IV and Francis “Kiko” N. Pangilinan, agreed with Mr. Drilon, both issuing separate press statements denouncing the move and questioned the constitutionality of the petition.
Mr. Drilon warned, “with this decision.. the power to remove an impeachable officer including Supreme Court justices, heads of constitutional offices, and even the President is, by implication and in effect, made available to the Solicitor General by way of a quo warranto petition. Hence, this decision makes the Solicitor General the most powerful official ion the bureaucracy, even more powerful than both the House of Representatives and the Senate insofar as the removal of impeachable officers is concerned.”
Mr. Aquino, for his part, said “ano pa ang laban ng karaniwang Pilipino kung ang Chief Justice ay kayang tanggalin nang basta-basta at hindi batay sa tamang proseso (What chance does the common Filipino have if the Chief Justice can be removed using any reason without following the proper process.”
Sought for comment on the developments, University of the Philippines (UP) political science professor Aries A. Arugay said, “Sereno’s ouster represented the combined hubris and impatience of the political coalition behind the current administration.”
He added: “The country’s already frail and eroding democratic regime will likely suffer from the far reaching repercussions on the SC’s decision” and that “it also seems that what you have is a polarized court – something that will reverberate through other political institutions and the larger society.” — Dane M. Enerio

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR