MANILA, Philippines — Senators do not see a constitutional crisis arising from a Supreme Court (SC) ruling unseating Maria Lourdes Sereno as chief justice, which lawmakers warned weakened the powers of Congress to remove impeachable officials.
In separate interviews, Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III and Minority Leader Franklin Drilon said it appeared that the House of Representatives would no longer insist on impeaching Sereno after the SC granted the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida.
They said if the House would not transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, there is no need for the chamber to convene as an impeachment court to try Sereno for her alleged violations of the law and the Constitution.
“We will only have a constitutional crisis if the House says Sereno’s ouster was not valid and the House thinks Sereno remains seated so they will transmit the articles of impeachment, and when that reaches us, we will say ‘the House is right, that’s why we will conduct a trial,’” Pimentel told dwIZ.
He said the next move of the House would be crucial as he downplayed concerns of possible unrest owing to the historic SC decision.
“The decision is controversial but since we are in a democracy, we can speak out,” Pimentel said, adding the credibility of the high court will depend on the soundness of the arguments in the ruling.
He said the ruling could also prompt the constitutional commission to propose amendments to the Charter to strengthen the impeachment process or speed up the removal of erring impeachable officials.
Drilon expressed doubts there would be a constitutional crisis, noting Sereno is not expected to insist to remain as chief justice, even as he reiterated his warning that the decision violated the Constitution.
He said the Senate could not compel the House to transmit the articles of impeachment for Congress to assert its impeachment powers.
Drilon said some senators might file a resolution to protest the move of the SC, but such may not go far due to the separation of powers and independence of the three branches of government.
Sen. Francis Pangilinan said the quo warranto was a complicated and unprecedented legal issue, considering Sereno was removed from office not through impeachment which is what the Constitution mandates.
“The legal question before us therefore is what plenary powers if any does the Senate as an impeachment court have over the acts of both the executive and judicial branches, meaning the solicitor general and the Supreme Court, that have encroached on its exclusive power to remove the Chief Justice,” Pangilinan said.
Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph Recto and Sen. Joel Villanueva said the chamber could not press the House to proceed in impeaching Sereno.
House Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas on Friday said the chamber will likely not transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
Welcomed
Meanwhile, Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez welcomed the SC decision, saying it showed that “the rule of law is prevailing in this country.”
He said the high court “interpreted the law correctly.”
Alvarez earlier said the House would vote on Sereno’s impeachment within two weeks from the resumption of the session of Congress on Monday.
Lawmakers went on an eight-week Lenten recess in March.
Fariñas said the impeachment proceeding has become “moot and academic” with Sereno’s removal from office by her peers.
Still, he said the House would await the resolution of a motion for reconsideration should the ousted chief justice file one before finally acting on the report of the committee on justice recommending her impeachment.
Sereno has argued that she, being an impeachable officer, could be removed only through impeachment as provided under the Constitution.
She urged the House to send the impeachment complaint to the Senate, where she expected to be accorded a fair trial.
Opposition congressmen urged her to appeal her ouster by filing a motion for reconsideration.
“The close 8-6 vote deserves a very serious review of the decision in a motion for reconsideration. Six of the eight justices who voted to oust Sereno refused to inhibit themselves despite their being biased by testifying against her in the hearing of the impeachment complaint by the House committee on justice,” Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said.
He said four of the eight justices are appointees of President Duterte, who has publicly and actively sought Sereno’s removal.
“The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to remove the chief justice in a quo warranto action because the Constitution mandates that an impeachable official, like the chief magistrate, can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate as the impeachment court,” he said.
He said the resort to quo warranto by Calida has expired six years ago, as it was available only within a year from Sereno’s appointment by former president Benigno Aquino III in 2012.
“It must also be underscored that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to void a presidential appointment based on the endorsement of the Judicial and Bar Council, which is the constitutional body empowered to screen nominees for appointment in the judiciary,” Lagman said.
His fellow opposition lawmaker Tom Villarin of Akbayan shared his call for Sereno to appeal her ouster.
“She should file a motion for reconsideration. For the sake of taking out our judiciary from the abyss they plunged themselves in. Against all odds, she must fight,” Villarin said.
He called on the House to transmit the impeachment case against Sereno to the Senate on Monday.
“By immediately transmitting the impeachment complaint to the Senate, this will trigger a reversal of the SC decision and will cure the unsound decision by making the impeachment process as the sole remedy for ousting justices. It’s a judgment call of the Speaker worth making and rightfully so,” he said.
Philippine ambassador to the United Nations Teodoro Locsin Jr. has warned SC Associate Justice Marvic Leonen from grandstanding his opposition to the decision removing Sereno.
“Leonen should shut up and act like Carpio with dignity,” Locsin posted on Twitter, referring to Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio who also dissented from the decision of the majority.
“Hectoring and faux heroics that cost nothing when his job is not on the line will only alienate the justices who might be convinced to change their vote. Grandstanding – to no effect and without eloquence – is self-abuse,” he added.
Locsin was reacting to reports citing Leonen’s dissenting opinion, which the justice shared on his social media account.
“I dissent. This petition should have been dismissed outright and not given due course. It does not deserve space in judicial deliberation within our constitutional democratic space,” said Leonen.
“Even if the Chief Justice has failed our expectations, quo warranto, as a process to oust an impeachable officer and a sitting member of the Supreme Court, is a legal abomination. It creates a precedent that gravely diminishes judicial independence and threatens the ability of this Court to assert the fundamental rights of our people,” he added.
Leonen, a former dean and colleague of Sereno at the University of the Philippines College of Law, urged law students to read the dissenting opinions.
“History has shown that the precedents we hate can be overturned in future more enlightened times with better lawyers who have a better sense of justice. Be that kind of lawyer. Study critically. Do not lose your soul,” he wrote.
Not a trier of facts
On Twitter, Locsin – a lawyer and former lawmaker – also raised questions on the removal of Sereno as chief justice.
Locsin noted the SC is not a trier of facts, saying the question that should have been resolved was whether or not quo warranto is an appropriate procedure to remove a justice.
“How can the court oust the CJ when it is not a trier of facts? All it can do and did was say quo warranto is another way to remove a justice, but the quo warranto proceeding must proceed and it may end in an acquittal,” he said in an exchange with a journalist.
“I thought quo warranto was questioned as appropriate procedure to remove a justice. Saying yes means the quo warranto proceeding now proceeds. How did they jump to ousting her in the same decision? They granted jurisdiction and made decision?” he asked. – With Jess Diaz, Janvic Mateo