Jose Calida asks Supreme Court to affirm Sereno’s ouster

MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to affirm with finality its decision last month ousting Maria Lourdes Sereno from the top judicial post.

In a 75-page comment filed Wednesday, Solicitor General Jose Calida sought the dismissal of the motion for reconsideration filed by Sereno for lack of merit.

Calida argued Sereno’s appeal should be denied for her failure to raise any new argument that could reverse the high court’s ruling that disqualified her from the chief justice post and invalidated her appointment in 2012.

Calida stressed the arguments presented by the ousted chief justice in her 205-page motion filed last May 30 were all rehash of issues already resolved by the Court in its ruling.

“These issues had been resolved by the Court in its decision dated May 11, 2018. The scholarly concurring and dissenting opinions of the members of the Court show that beyond doubt,” Calida pointed out, referring to Sereno’s claims on lack of jurisdiction and authority of the SC to remove her, violation of the one-year prescription period on quo warranto cases and lack of evidence on her lack of proven integrity.

Calida described Sereno’s appeal as “pro forma” or a resurrection of issues previously raised by parties and already resolved by the Court, which he said served “no other purpose than to delay or impede the smooth administration of justice.”

The solicitor general, who moved for Sereno’s ouster by filing the quo warranto petition last March, said the SC ruling was correct.

He rebutted the claim of the ousted chief justice that she could only be removed through impeachment in Congress.

Sereno had also argued the SC overstepped its powers and violated the separation of powers as supported by the draft Senate resolution reportedly signed by 14 senators to support this position.

“A dispassionate look at the present impeachment provision, Section 2 of Article XI, shows that it does not preclude the removal of impeachable officers through a quo warranto proceeding. Both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions used the words shall and only; on the other hand, the 1987 Constitution uses the word ‘may’ to qualify the modes of removal of such impeachable officials. The use of the term ‘may’ in the provision is contours as permissive and operating to confer discretion. It cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect,” he explained.

Calida reiterated the quo warranto proceedings are “separate and distinct from impeachment.”

He further argued that the SC was correct in ruling that Sereno does not possess the eligibility of proven integrity to occupy the chief justice post through her failure to file her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).

Calida also rebutted Sereno’s claim that the SC violated her constitutional right to due process.

“The Court observed the right of the respondent to due process. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself,” he explained.

The solicitor general also defended the refusal of the six justices accused by Sereno of bias – Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam and Samuel Martires – to inhibit from the case.

Calida maintained there is no basis for the six magistrates to inhibit.

“Mere imputation of bias and partiality is not enough. A voluntary inhibition must rest on arbitrary or prejudicial conduct,” he pointed out. 

Calida also said the SC ruled correctly in exempting the government – particularly his office – from the one-year prescription period on quo warranto cases under Section 11, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court.

With the submission of the OSG’s comment, the high court is expected to decide on Sereno’s case with finality. 

Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio recently revealed they intend to resolve the case within the month. An insider bared the justices have set their deliberations on Sereno’s appeal in their session next Tuesday.