Opposing opinions
In my previous piece, I expressed my opinion about the ouster of former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno as a legal defeat but a moral victory on her part. In this article, I would have wanted to discuss the legal arguments for and against the Quo Warranto petition. But that would be treading dangerously close to violating the sub judice rule which restricts comments on the merits of an ongoing case.
I may mention, however, and if warranted, express with favor or disfavor the majority opinion as well as the dissenting opinions of the justices. The court's decision is around 153 pages long and I urge everyone to read it in its entirety as well as that of the dissenting opinions.
We may disagree on many things in this country. Some may call the decision of the court an assault against judicial independence while others call it a victory for the rule of law. Despite our deep differences, however, let us strive to keep the discourse at the level of civility, veering away from the foul and profane rhetoric that has enveloped this country's democratic space since the rise of President Duterte to power.
The Supreme Court anchored its decision on the principle that no one is above the law, "not even a Chief Justice who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution." The high court, speaking through Associate Justice Noel Tijam, held that Quo Warranto is essentially judicial in character --"it calls for the Supreme Court's constitutional duty and power to decide cases and actual controversies."
Thus, the court can rule and it has in fact ruled that Sereno is ineligible as a candidate and nominee for the position of chief justice because of her "lack of integrity in chronically failing to disclose her SALN." The court has supervisory authority over the Judicial and Bar Council, the body tasked to screen the nominees for chief justice and submit a list from which the president makes his choice. This supervisory authority, according to the court, includes ensuring that the JBC complies with its own rules.
Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, in his dissenting opinion, said that impeachment is the only method allowed under the Constitution to remove any member of the Supreme Court. "To permit this quo warranto petition to remove an incumbent member of this Court is to violate the Constitution." The court should instead have treated the Quo Warranto petition as an administrative investigation where its findings and recommendation will then be submitted to Congress, Carpio wrote.
For Associate Justice Alfredo Caguioa, "the case makes the time when the Court commits seppuku - without honor." Quo Warranto cannot proceed against a member of the Supreme Court, he said. "To permit the Court to exercise its judicial powers to determine the fate of its individual members would expose each to the pressures of conformity at the risk of removal."
For Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, "impeachment is the remedy to unseat ineligible appointees to constitutional offices" while Quo Warranto would only be the small circle fully enclosed within the bigger impeachment circle, "their common element being the impeachable officer's ineligibility, whether continuing or not."
For Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., the court's ruling on the Quo Warranto petition was premature because it still needs a court trial. Before the court could grant a Quo Warranto petition, the JBC must first be given due process in defending or reviewing its position of including Sereno in the list of nominees, Velasco said.
- Latest
