No serene exit

Solicitor General Jose Calida filed last Monday a petition before the Supreme Court (SC) to challenge the legality of the appointment made by former President Benigno “PNoy” Aquino III who picked then associate justice Maria Lourdes Sereno to become Chief Justice. The Solicitor General justified his 34-page quo warranto petition before the SC as a “proper remedy to question the validity of Sereno’s appointment.”

In her profile in the Official Gazette of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), Sereno is described as a lawyer-academician who became the 24th Chief Justice of the SC on Aug. 24, 2012. This was a few days after the Senate declared the late Chief Justice Renato Corona guilty at the end of an impeachment trial initiated by pro-Aquino lawmakers during the 15th Congress.

During PNoy’s term, Sereno was his “first appointee” to become an SC associate justice on Aug. 16, 2010. Born only on July 2, 1960, she is the youngest to be appointed to the post, which would also make her one of the longest-serving Chief Justice ever. That is, if she continues in office until the mandatory retirement age of 70 years old for justices. That would be in 2030, by which time she would have served a total of 20 years.

The quo warranto proceeding opened up another avenue to cut short Sereno’s tenure as Chief Justice. It came just as the House committee on justice winded down last week its impeachment hearings against her. The House committee on justice, chaired by Mindoro Oriental Rep. Reynaldo Umali, will vote tomorrow if probable cause is established on the impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Lorenzo Gadon against Sereno in January.

From all indications, the administration-controlled majority at the House committee on justice would likely give the go-signal for the impeachment of Sereno and call for approval by all members of the House of Representatives during the plenary session just days before they go on Lenten break this month.

Gadon pointed to Sereno’s non-filing of statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) as among the several alleged impeachable offenses. It is the same offense identified in Calida’s quo warranto petition against Sereno. A quo warranto proceeding is an action used to determine whether a person has legal right to hold public office.

Through this quo warranto proceeding, the Solicitor General cited, Sereno would be “judged by her peers, rather than by politicians.”

Calida vowed that the Office of the Solicitor General would not allow Sereno to undergo the indignity that Corona “suffered at the hands of politicians who unjustly convicted him.” He facetiously told Sereno in his press conference: “You do not deserve that.”

Sereno’s camp, however, insisted that an impeachment is the only way to oust the Chief Magistrate in accordance with the country’s 1987 Constitution.

The same position was echoed by a number of Senators, especially those belonging to the Liberal Party (LP). Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan, LP president, warned that such quo warranto proceeding is a “brazen attempt” to usurp the powers of Congress to impeach. A chief ally of President Rodrigo Duterte in the 17th Congress, Senate President Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, also sneered at Calida’s petition as an attack to the Senate’s power to impeach.

However, the House majority leadership thinks otherwise. Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez maintained the two modes – impeachment and quo warranto proceedings – are mutually exclusive to each other and can thus “proceed simultaneously.” Alvarez backed Umali’s views that quo warranto and impeachment proceedings are separate and independent actions by the judiciary and Congress, respectively, and are based on different grounds.

“Impeachment presupposes a valid appointment while quo warranto questions the qualifications of an officer and that is well within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,” he explained.

Sereno’s camp was more defiant in saying quo warranto proceedings to remove her as Chief Justice were admissions by her accusers that they do not have the goods to oust her through an impeachment trial at the Senate.

Perhaps, Sereno’s camp are counting to get the minimum number from the present 22 Senators sitting as judges to buck the two-thirds vote required to impeach her. Of the 22 Senators, seven are up for re-election in the coming mid-term elections. Sereno only needs eight Senators to prevent her ouster.

Aside from Pimentel himself, the Senators who need re-election are Sonny Angara, Bam Aquino, Nancy Binay, JV Ejercito, Grace Poe and Cynthia Villar. This is why many of the Senators led by the Senate president earlier expressed apprehensions, claiming the impeachment trial might derail approval of their legislative priority bills pending in Congress.

Thus, the quo warranto proceeding is obviously a fallback for the administration in power to oust Sereno. Giving due course to the quo warranto petition, the High Court yesterday gave Sereno ten days to comment. Since both chambers of Congress are set to go on a month-long recess, the House leadership conceded yesterday to give Sereno reprieve during the Lenten period to mull her fate.

Sereno grudgingly went on an indefinite leave starting March 1. Meeting as a whole last week, 13 justices of the High Court reached a “consensus” that Sereno should take an indefinite leave. While initially her official spokesman announced she is going on “wellness” leave, Sereno clarified there is no such term as “indefinite” leave in their administrative rules. Sereno subsequently apologized to her SC colleagues for the unintended confusion.

 Stressing anew she is not going to resign as demanded by Duterte allies in the 17th Congress, Sereno insisted she is merely availing this leave of absence to prepare for the looming impeachment trial at the Senate.

By whatever proceedings – be it impeachment or quo warranto – it won’t be a serene exit for Sereno out of the controversies hounding her continued stay in office.