Quo vadis Sereno?

This will definitely be another red, hot day for the Supreme Court as another tele-drama unfolds. The Chief of the Supreme Court won’t budge while her Court seems to have given up on her. How will she command the ship when her crew doesn’t trust her anymore?

The word ‘supreme’ alone connotes highest principled, highest ranking power of the land. But how can you respect the Court if there are questionable practices within? The Supreme Court’s decisions are vested with precedential value or doctrinal authority, as its interpretations of the Constitution and the laws are final and beyond review by any other branch of government. The Supreme Court should be fair, impartial and true. Corruption and politicking within its chambers must stop.

The impeachment of Chief Justice Sereno has been hitting the headlines almost every day. The Chief Justice has vowed to fight and not to resign even if the president is behind the move to oust her. Is this a case of a stubborn sense of entitlement or perhaps, principled fearlessness?

In 2012, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno appeared to be the luckiest of them all with a term of office spanning the reign of four presidents. Her appointment raised eyebrows because she was chosen over senior members of the Court, but the discretion of the appointing authority could not be questioned for as long as the appointee possesses the minimum qualifications.

After only five of her supposed 18-year rule, the embattled chief magistrate now finds herself in an unenviable situation. It seems everything from the book to the kitchen sink and even the toilet bowl have been thrown at her. She was accused of a lot of things on national television; her psychological state discussed in executive session, in what some quarters claim to be an unethical disclosure of confidential information, will be declassified by congress and officially made public at the impeachment trial before the Senate, although it already found its way to the news, as usual; her impeachment is looming with the House Justice Committee finding probable cause; she was reportedly “pressured” by her colleagues in the High Tribunal to go on indefinite leave; the Solicitor General wants her appointment voided; and to rub salt into the wound, Supreme Court personnel did not show her any support in contrast to what they did when they wore black in support of then Chief Justice Corona.

Wow, this is history in the making – the “government versus Sereno,” with all the branches of government, with supposedly distinct and independent voices, now singing the same song. The legislative branch wants her out via the impeachment route and in an obvious attempt to pressure her into resigning. The Justice Committee conducted several televised hearings where justices of the Supreme Court testified against her. Then very recently, the Solicitor General of the Executive Department filed a petition for quo warranto with the Supreme Court to declare her appointment invalid for failure to comply with the Judicial and Bar Council’s requirement of submitting Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN). Obviously, she is not wanted by her peers in her very own Judicial Department. Quo vadis Sereno?

It seems congress is looking at a plenary vote in May if it would still be necessary as the Chief Justice may still change her mind and do the ultimate sacrifice, or the Supreme Court may void her appointment. But does not the Constitution limit the removal of the Chief Justice to the impeachment process? Can the Supreme Court remove one of its own? Ok this is going to be too technical but bear with me as I try to analyze things. The internal rules of the Supreme Court provide for the establishment of a permanent Committee on Ethics with the task of investigating complaints against Members of the Court and recommending to the en banc disciplinary sanctions. Thus, a former justice of the Supreme Court was censured and monetarily penalized for failing to declare a relative taking the Bar Examinations, which he chaired. Another magistrate was found guilty of grave misconduct and meted a penalty fine of P500,000 in connection with the premature leaking of a Supreme Court decision.

The Supreme Court can discipline its own members, but it has no power to remove them, permanently or even temporarily by way of suspension. This power to remove is exclusively lodged with the legislature through impeachment. It was explained however that the quo warranto petition filed by the Solicitor General is an entirely different remedy for an entirely different ground. It is neither based on the grounds for impeachment under the Constitution nor on the grounds for disciplinary action provided by the internal rules of the Supreme Court. It is not an action to impose a disciplinary penalty for an offense. Under the Rules of Court, quo warranto is an action by the government against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office. Hence, the theory of the Solicitor General is that Sereno is unlawfully holding the position of Chief Justice, not because of any administrative offense or culpability but because she should not have been qualified to assume the position in the first place for lack of eligibility.

The Chief Justice seeks refuge in the dismissal of the disbarment case filed against then Chief Justice Fernan on the ground that the action will result to his removal from office, which could be possible only through impeachment. But the Fernan doctrine may not apply to Sereno because at the time Fernan was appointed and assumed his office he had the qualification of being a member of the bar, so there is nothing wrong with his appointment to begin with. Hypothetically, although absurd, what is the remedy if a president appoints to the Supreme Court a fake lawyer or an under-aged lawyer or a lawyer who lacked the number of years in the practice of law? It cannot be impeachment because these are not valid grounds under the Constitution. So shall we just let this pass and charge it to experience?

The President, who is the highest impeachable official, may be unseated by the Presidential Electoral Tribunal in an election protest based on election fraud or in a quo warranto petition premised on ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic. If quo warranto is proper against an elected President, why apply a different rule to an appointed Chief Justice? At least procedurally, there is logic in the position of the Solicitor General. As it appears, only Justice Marvic Leonen believes the petition should be dismissed outright.

Yet, whether the failure of the Chief Justice to submit her SALN is a valid ground to conclude that she lacks integrity, or she was ineligible to be appointed to her position, is an entirely different issue. During the Corona impeachment, many believed that the failure to strictly comply with the SALN requirement could not constitute an impeachable offense, yet the Impeachment Court found otherwise. Will the Supreme Court find the non-submission of the JBC-required SALN a valid ground to declare the Chief Justice ineligible for appointment? It would truly be an eerie spine-chilling ending for her colleagues to hammer the final nail, but they make jurisprudence, right or wrong. Abangan!