Between a quo warranto and an impeachment

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is a lady in distress, finding herself between the proverbial Scylla and Charybdis, or in the middle of the devil and the deep blue sea. Facing two aggressive attacks from two different fronts at the same time, I find this very difficult and precarious predicament, somehow comparable to Liza Soberano’s portrayal of a warrior princess’ “Ganda” (in the now-famous ABS-CBN telenovela “Bagani”) being attacked by both the “taga-gubat’’ and ‘’taga-disyerto.’’ What Sereno needs is a hero in shining armor akin to “Lakas” so she can survive.

But anyway, the people want to know what is a quo warranto? The thesaurus tells us that it is a legal proceeding by virtue of which a public official’s right to hold a public office is being challenged before the proper court. The term itself is a Latin phrase literally meaning “by what authority” or “by what warrant.” According the old English legal system, it is a writ or a written order from the monarch addressed to a suspected usurper to explain by what reason is he holding such office and upon what legal basis. In modern legal practice, it is an extraordinary petition filed by the prosecuting attorney challenging someone who is being charged of usurping a public office.

In the Philippine Rules of Court, Rule 66 allows such a remedy to be initiated by the solicitor general to challenge an incumbent whose right to occupy a public office is being questioned. The 34-paged petition filed by Solgen Jose Calida on the fifth of March questioned the right of CJ Sereno to continue holding her office. Calida alleges that Sereno does not have the integrity required under Section 7 (3) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution because she refused and failed to submit all the statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth required of her by the Judicial and Bar Council for a valid application as justice of the highest court of the land. In a public interview, Calida even stated that such a petition is a supreme act of kindness so that the chief justice would be spared from the rigors of an impeachment proceeding shown via national TV.

Solgen Calida questioned the integrity of CJ Sereno when she allegedly failed to declare her attorney’s fees of $745,000 or roughly P37 million. I do not wish to comment on the merits of this case as it is still “sub judice.” But as a professor of Law, and a Bar reviewer, I would venture to touch on the procedural aspects only. That is not prohibited. This column, in answer to many inquiries, is of the view that an impeachable official like Sereno can also be challenged through quo warranto. No less than the Supreme Court itself has ruled in the case of Funa vs Villar (GR 192791, 24 April 2012) that this writ is also an available remedy. More insights can also be gathered if one reads the case of Topacio vs Ong, Justice of Sandiganbayan (GR 179895, 18 December 2008). I also believe that CJ Sereno has a better chance of acquittal before the High Court than before the impeachment proceedings where some non-lawyer politicians may “feast” on her honor and integrity.

Whatever shall happen, I pity the chief justice for having to go through this ordeal. And I blame the PNoy who pushed her onto the edge of this cliff, between the devil and the deep blue sea. She needs an army of Bagani warriors to come to her rescue.