Sereno: Lies, deceit, and ouster

"Above all things, integrity is the Judge’s portion and proper virtue.” Taken from Essay LVI: of Judicature

Integrity has always been one of the core qualifications of a judge. This is because more than merit and competence, integrity entails consistency of a person’s character when it comes to honesty, truthfulness, and adherence to morals and ethics. For one to become a member of the judiciary, he or she must be able to show proof of integrity. The greater the burden it would be on one applying for the position of Chief Justice, as it is the Chief Justice’s responsibility not only to be the blueprint of unquestionable character, but likewise to maintain among his or her fellow members of the judiciary the tenets of moral values and discipline.

Integrity is also something Maria Lourdes Sereno had not only failed – but refused to understand as she coveted the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. And even up to her very last second in the said post, she denied herself the opportunity to uphold dignity and integrity not just as Chief Justice, but as a person.

In March 2018, Solicitor General Jose Calida, on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, filed a quo warranto petition against then Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, questioning her integrity and eligibility in holding the highest position in the Judiciary. On May 11, 2018, the Supreme Court, in a vote of 8 to 6, granted the said petition, hence removing Sereno as Chief Justice.

In the Supreme Court’s decision, it was ruled that Sereno is “guilty of unlawfully holding and exercising the office of Chief Justice,” due to her failure to file a substantial number of SALNs and her failure to submit the required SALNs to the Judicial and Bar Council during her application for the position, which are clear manifestations of lack of integrity. It is a constitutional duty of a public officer to submit a sworn declaration of his or her assets, liabilities, and net worth, and when the Constitution and the law exact obedience, public officers should comply and offer no excuses – things she repeatedly violated.

A lot of people, including former CJ Sereno herself, want the quo warranto petition dismissed using the argument that the statute of limitations has already expired. For the sake of argument, let’s say that the prescriptive period of one year – as stated in Section 11, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, applies to the quo warranto petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Given so, are they trying to tell us that we should just tolerate an individual with questionable integrity to continue holding the highest position in the judicial branch merely because the statute of limitations has expired?

If that was the case, then contrary to what they are clamoring for, their fight is not about upholding democracy or what is right and just. Rather, they are only fighting for their self-proclaimed right to stay in power.

Indeed, some would argue that while former CJ Sereno lacks integrity and should be removed from office, the proper forum should be through an impeachment trial and not via a quo warranto petition. However, contrary to several recent statements coming from politicians, it was explicitly stated in the Supreme Court’s decision that in this context, impeachment is not the only the remedy that can be used to remove a public official i.e. Sereno.

It was also stated in the ruling that “…the Solicitor General is not asking the court to remove the respondent for impeachable offenses: it is not the concern of the petition. Instead, the Solicitor General has good reason to believe that respondent (Sereno) has no authority to occupy the esteemed office of the Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines: she has not shown that she possessed proven integrity, an indispensable qualification for appointment to the Judiciary pursuant to Section 7(3), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.”

In essence, the OSG is merely seeking the removal of Maria Lourdes Sereno from a position she was never qualified to occupy in the first place.

Not too long ago, Sereno tried to politicize her situation by putting the blame on President Rodrigo Duterte. However, as stated by the OSG, “…the Solicitor General cannot just sit idly by and allow an unqualified person such as the respondent to continue occupying the highest seat in the highest court of the land: that it would be a dereliction of his duty under the Constitution.”

The question now is: did the former Chief Justice expect or was she asking the government to turn a blind eye on her case?

Sereno may have fooled people in the past with her lies and deceit, by making them believe that she is a person of integrity. Unfortunately, based on the justifications of the quo warranto petition granted by the Supreme Court, she is not.