SC to tackle ICC withdrawal petition on July 24
THE SUPREME Court (SC) is set to proceed with the oral arguments on the petition seeking to nullify the Philippine’s withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on July 24, according to a statement released on Monday.
According to court spokesperson Atty. Theodore O. Te, the SC has ordered the government to comment on the petition filed by opposition senators within a non-extendable period of ten days upon receipt.
Senators Francis N. Pangilinan, Franklin M. Drilon, Paolo Benigno A. Aquino IV, Leila M. De Lima, Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, and Antonio F. Trillanes IV petitioned the high court to declare “invalid” President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s March 16 withdrawal from the ICC as it did not pass through the Senate.
The respondents to the petition are Philippine Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr., Foreign Secretary Alan Peter S. Cayetano, Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador S. Panelo. — Dane Angelo M. Enerio
SC orders Calida to comment on Sereno quo warranto reversal petition
THE SUPREME Court (SC) en banc has directed Solicitor General Jose C. Calida to comment, within a non-extendable period of five days upon receipt, on the motion for reconsideration submitted by Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno seeking to reverse the landmark May 11 ruling that voided her appointment as the high court’s chief justice.
Mr. Calida’s quo warranto petition, which the court voted 8-6 in favor of, questioned the integrity of the former top magistrate for not completely submitting her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) as a requirement for the post.
Ms. Sereno filed a motion for reconsideration on May 30, citing her right to due process.
Lawyer Anacleto A. Lacanilao III, Ms. Sereno’s spokesperson, said in a statement Tuesday, June 5, that «we are encouraged that the Justices have given themselves more time to appreciate the new arguments, facts, and matters that make the reconsideration of the May 11 Decision compelling.
The May 11 decision also directed Ms. Sereno to explain why she should not be sanctioned for violating the sub judice rule for discussing the quo warranto petition in public. On May 25, she asked for a 15-day extension from the SC to comply with the order. — Dane Angelo M. Enerio
