House to await final SC ruling on Sereno case

MANILA, Philippines — The impeachment complaint against ousted chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno now pending at the House of Representatives will only be thrown out once the Supreme Court rules with finality on her quo warranto case, House Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas said yesterday. 

As this developed, members of the Coalition for Justice (CFJ) went to the Senate to reiterate their call on the institution to take a collective stand against the SC’s decision to oust Sereno and assert its exclusive right to remove an impeachable official through an impeachment trial.

“There’s some sort of a prejudicial question (since the SC’s decision to remove Sereno is not yet final). There’s a question of law,” Fariñas told reporters in an interview. 

Nevertheless, Fariñas said the House committee on rules that he chairs has excluded the Sereno impeachment from its agenda “out of respect to a co-equal branch” pending the SC’s final ruling on the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida. 

Fariñas said the House has to step aside since SC assumed jurisdiction over the case.

Based on the rules, Fariñas’ committee has until July 24 to refer its report to the plenary.

Voting 8-6, the SC granted the quo warranto petition due to Sereno’s supposed failure to file her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, which made her appointment void from the beginning.

Assert jurisdiction

Meanwhile, the CFJ – composed of 57 organizations – went back to the Senate yesterday to ask the institution to come up with a resolution expressing its sense that the quo warranto proceedings of the SC should be suspended and that the court should respect the exclusive power of the Senate to remove impeachable officials, in this case, the chief justice.

The CFJ has gone to the Senate before to voice its position, but members of the majority bloc rejected the call, saying it was premature and inappropriate for the upper chamber to come out with such a resolution when the SC was still hearing the case. 

But now that the matter has been resolved by the SC, the CFJ asked the Senate to assert its exclusive power under the Constitution to decide on the fate of impeachable officials accused of wrongdoing. 

“If the decision remains unchallenged and the Senate’s duty is unperformed, the dire fallout on our system and people will lie at the Senate’s door,” the CFJ said in an open letter, which they delivered to each senator’s office.

“Please act now to save our democratic institutions from tyranny. Your courageous intervention is the succor our gasping democracy requires,” it added.

According to the CFJ, the ruling of the SC on the case of Sereno would have dire consequences on judicial independence and separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution. 

It argued that the ruling makes impeachable officers and members of the judiciary open targets, “who will now hesitate to vigorously resist these pressures, even when justice demands it.” 

“The decision grants the Executive the power to oppress dissenters. It is the death knell for democracy and our system of checks and balances,” the CFJ stated. 

Since the ruling is not yet final and Sereno is expected to file an appeal, the CFJ said the Senate still has time to make its voice heard. 

The CFJ noted the widespread anger over the ruling of the SC and demanded the Senate not to surrender its constitutional mandate as an impeachment court. 

“If this decision becomes final, the public will ask why the Senate did not act. Already their courage is building. They are calling for justice, as we are,” the CFJ said. 

After the SC handed down its ruling on the quo warranto petition, various senators came out with their statements assailing the decision. 

Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III led the way by asserting the exclusive power of the Senate to remove impeachable officers under the Constitution. 

While the Senate cannot do anything about the impeachment trial of Sereno until the House transmits the articles of impeachment to the Senate, Pimentel said the senators in their individual capacity or as an institution are free to express their views on the matter. 

As of yesterday, Pimentel said no senator has filed a resolution to express the sense of the Senate that it has the sole authority to remove impeachable officials. 

Sen. Risa Hontiveros has indicated she would file a resolution, which Pimentel said would be considered once it is taken up in plenary. 

“If someone files, we will entertain the resolution. Let us wait and see if there is a senator who will file a resolution. I have already issued my statement, if we could all review the Supreme Court decision, including the Supreme Court, please review,” Pimentel said. 

If a resolution is passed by the Senate, then Pimentel said this would become part of the records of the Senate. 

He said the resolution could also be used by the camp of Sereno or any of the intervenors as an attachment in the motion for reconsideration for the SC ruling.

Speculative

For its part, Malacañang, through presidential spokesman Harry Roque Jr., described as “purely speculative” claims that the SC decision has made the solicitor general very powerful.

Roque said the ruling was based on existing constitutional provisions on SALNs and did not give new powers to the solicitor general.

“What is clear is that the quo warranto was filed against a specific government official who was required to file her SALNs by virtue of the Constitution and the law. So if there was no violation of that provision of the Constitution, the solicitor general will not have that power,” Roque said in a press briefing. 

“That means, the decision did not give new powers to the SolGen. It was the Constitution that requires the filing of the SALN. That was the basis of the solicitor general,” he added. 

Roque said the SC merely asserted the “supremacy of the Constitution” in granting the quo warranto petition. 

Roque said there are other grounds for quo warranto petition, like citizenship. 

Roque said Sereno may find it hard to reverse the decision of the high court. The ruling can be reversed if two of the eight justices who voted to oust her change their position. 

“I wish her the best, but with the decision, which is more than 150 pages, it may be difficult because it seems that the justices really thought out their decision,” Roque said in Filipino. 

CA not JBC

Mindoro Oriental Rep. Reynaldo Umali, chairman of the House committee on justice, said the Commission on Appointments (CA) – and not the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) – should screen nominations to the SC amid the controversy over Sereno’s appointment.

“Justices should be vetted by the CA, where proceedings are open to the public and are therefore transparent,” Umali said in a television interview. 

In contrast, he said JBC processes “are held in secret.” – With Alexis Romero, Jess Diaz