By Camille A. Aguinaldo
Tensions rose in the early hours of Thursday, May 31, as senators tackled the Senate resolution urging the Supreme Court to review its decision on the quo warranto petition that ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno.
After the Senate passed the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), Senate Resolution No. 738 was taken up before the plenary with Senator Panfilo M. Lacson registering his opposition on the document’s adoption.
Senator Francis N. Pangilinan, sponsor of the resolution, maintained that the resolution was meant to place on record the view of 14 senators that the SC quo warranto proceeding was a violation of the Constition.
“It is the position taken by 14 senators that we must place on record our view that such a quo warranto proceeding is in violation of the Constitution. Since the matter is still pending by way of motion for reconsideration maybe the resolution disseminated would help in allowing some of the members of the Supreme Court to reconsider their position and uphold the Constitution,” he said.
The SC voted 8-6 last May 11 granting Solicitor General Jose C. Calida’s quo warranto petition, which voided the appointment of Ms. Sereno as chief magistrate.
Mr. Lacson, who did not sign the resolution, took the Senate resolution and Mr. Pangilinan’s statement as an interpretation of the Constitution which the Senate was not allowed to do.
“Is it your view that the Senate as a collegial body can question an action taken by the Supreme court on a judicial matter such as certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, habeas corpus, or (quo warranto)?” he also argued.
The senator also questioned the resolution’s intentions to influence the Supreme Court justices to reverse its controversial ruling. He also doubted whether the wording of the resolution was respectful.
“Is it that encroaching on the powers of the Supreme Court that has original jurisdiction over petitions for quo warranto?” he said.
Mr. Pangilinan, meanwhile, assured that the document remained respectful with the high court even if it contained strong statements, citing a provision which indicated that the SC ruling has set dangerous precedent” that undermined Congress’ exclusive powers on impeachment cases.
For his part, Senate Minority Leader Franklin M. Drilon clarified that senators were merely expressing the stand of the Senate on the quo warranto decision. He said the Supreme Court may refuse to heed the calls of the Senate on the matter.
“What the resolution proposes is just to express the sense of the Senate… We are 14 senators (who) have signed this resolution expressing the sense of the Senate. The Supreme Court, in its own judgment, can simply say, ‘we do not agree with the Senate and therefore we proceed,'” he said
“But it doesn’t mean that we cannot express our opinion and pass the resolution if majority of senators believe so.This is all that we’re asking. We recognize that the final arbiter is the Supreme Court,” he added.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR