MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) is set to tackle today the appeal of former chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno against last month’s ruling to remove her from the top judicial post.
An insider revealed that the motion for reconsideration, filed by the ousted chief last week, is included in the agenda of the justices as they resume sessions after a month-long decision writing break. The Court, according to the source, is expected to first seek the comment of Solicitor General Jose Calida before deciding on it.
In her appeal, Sereno argued that the Court violated her constitutional right to due process and overstepped its power. She insisted that the SC has no authority to remove her from office because she could only be removed through impeachment as provided by the Constitution.
She reiterated that the issue on her failure to submit all the required statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) could not be basis for adjudging her of lack of integrity and dishonesty.
She also claimed that the decision made baseless conclusions that are unsupported by evidence, such as alleged tax fraud, which allegedly lacks evidentiary support.
On technical grounds, Sereno insisted that the quo warranto petition should not have been granted because it already went beyond the one-year prescription period from appointment.
‘Not karma’
Former president Benigno Aquino III said yesterday that Sereno’s ouster cannot be considered bad karma for the ouster of the late chief justice Renato Corona during his administration.
“If it were karma, CJ Sereno should have done something wrong to Corona, that’s why bad karma returned to her. But what has Sereno done to Corona? Isn’t that story incomplete?” he asked at a press conference in Manila.
He believed that the case of Sereno is different from that of Corona.
“In Corona’s case, the discoveries came from himself, it was admission – as opposed to someone else bringing it up,” Aquino stressed in Filipino.
Aquino also pointed out that the impeachment process took its course in Corona’s case – unlike in Sereno’s case.
“In Corona’s case there was impeachment process. Here in Sereno’s case, I can’t understand if there’s really a process because if you look at it, impeachment is the sole process in the Constitution to remove impeachable officials. But here comes the Supreme Court,” he lamented.
He reiterated that the SC ruling that granted the quo warranto petition and invalidated the appointment of Sereno to the top judicial post in 2012 was “forced.”
Aquino pushed the ouster of Corona who was appointed by former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo during the election period in 2010. After the ouster of Corona in 2012, he appointed Sereno as chief justice.
Meanwhile, the advocacy group Coalition For Justice (CFJ), which supports Sereno, yesterday claimed that her ouster was a conspiracy plot that shows obvious collusion.
“The SC quo warranto decision is undoubtedly a political maneuvering of the most repulsive kind. With neither precedent nor viable legal authority, it was propelled, singly and exclusively, though ferociously, by a desire to get rid of the Chief Justice through unconstitutional means,” CFJ convenor Pastor Caloy Diño said.
The SC, via an 8-6 vote last May 11, ruled that her failure to submit her SALN when she was law professor at the University of the Philippines meant that “her integrity was not established at the time of her application,” making her ineligible to hold her position.
He urged the court to review its rulings on previous cases involving SALNs as he argued that the tribunal contravened its own rulings, including the case of the Ombudsman vs Racho in which the SC ruled that a mere declaration of the SALN will not be dishonesty, “if there is no unexplained wealth” involved.
“Notwithstanding the prior rulings of the SC on the SALNs, the quo warranto decision held that mere failure to prove the filing of SALNs as a teacher in UP is a ground to remove a sitting Chief Justice, six years after her appointment as Chief Justice, eight years after she became a member of the Court, 12 years after she resigned from UP faculty and where there is no allegation of any ill-gotten wealth,” he pointed out.
The SALN, he explained, was designed to promote transparency in the civil service and act as a deterrent against government officials who want to enrich themselves in office.
Based on previous SALN rulings handed down by the SC, Diño said that even if Sereno failed to file her SALNs while still teaching at the state university, this would only constitute simple negligence, especially in the absence of unexplained wealth, and would merit only a stern warning and a P5,000 fine.
He cited the cases of Ombudsman vs. Capulong, where the high court allegedly exonerated a Customs official for failing to file a SALN for five years, and that of PAGC vs. Pleyto, where the high court allegedly meted a Department of Public Works and Highways regional director with only a six-month suspension without pay.
In these cases, he added, Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo De Castro, Diosdado Peralta and Lucas Bersamin – who voted to grant the quo warranto petition – participated in the decision making process.