Sereno ouster imperils Philippine democracy, experts say

MANILA, Philippines — The ouster of Maria Lourdes Sereno as chief justice of the Supreme Court could dismantle legal and political norms which could endanger the country’s democracy, experts warned on Thursday.

Writing in the Interpreter published by the Australian think tank Lowy Institute, Imelda Deinla, Veronica Taylor and Steven Rood said the decision of the Supreme Court to grant the quo warranto petition against Sereno revealed the weakness of democratic institutions in the Philippines in protecting themselves from the “unrestrained will of government.”

“This can only further diminish the perception of legal institutions in the country as slow, inaccessible, and remote from the injustices being experienced by minorities, those on the social periphery, and ordinary citizens,” they said.

The Supreme Court’s decision could also set a worrying legal precedent, they wrote, as unpredictable and arbitrary judicial interpretation could undermine the country’s political stability.

They added that with the decision all impeachable officials would become conscious of vulnerability to a similar ouster petition if they angered the government.

The experts said that with the ruling, the Supreme Court had already become the site and object of “contentious politics,” with judges of lower courts expressing support or opposition to Sereno’s removal following the testimony of five justices before a House of Representatives panel.

READ: Some solons mulling impeachment vs justices who voted to oust Sereno

Last week, voting 8-6, the High Court granted the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida questioning the legality of Sereno’s appointment to the top judicial post in 2012.

The government’s top lawyer argued that Sereno flunked the integrity test required of the holder of the office after she failed to file some of her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, a charge that the ousted chief justice denied.

Critics of the decision said that the ruling would undermine the independence of the country’s judiciary and violated the constitutionally-prescribed route of removing a chief justice through an impeachment case.

Aside from the ouster petition, Sereno was also facing an impeachment case at the House of Representatives where she was accused of committing 27 acts that supposedly warranted her removal from office.

Sereno, who was critical of the government’s conduct of its crackdown on illegal drugs, said that President Rodrigo Duterte was behind these efforts to oust her, an accusation the chief executive denied although he ordered his allies in Congress to hasten the removal process against her.

Deinla, Taylor and Rood said that the Supreme Court ruling raised questions about the separation of powers in the Philippines and stated that Duterte’s administration had seen “a progressive deterioration of rule of law in the Philippines.”

Sereno’s dismissal, they said, added the judiciary to the list of “compromised institutional checks and balances” under Duterte.

READ: 13 senators back resolution questioning SC ruling on quo warranto