Right to hold public office

Last May 11, the Supreme Court (SC) granted the quo warranto petition to remove Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno from office on the basis of an invalid appointment. Of 15 SC justices, nine found Sereno guilty for having violated requirements on the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).

By the same majority vote, the SC ruled that the quo warranto petition filed against Sereno by the Office of the Solicitor-General headed by Jose Calida was the proper remedy to oust a sitting Chief Justice. In his petition, the Sol-Gen cited the quo warranto petition as the appropriate remedy to question the validity of Sereno’s appointment on the ground that she has been “unlawfully holding” her post because of her alleged failure to fully disclose her wealth.

The High Court acted with unusual speed on the 34-page quo warranto petition that Calida filed against Sereno last March 5. The petition came even as the Chief Justice was already facing an impeachment complaint that was first filed by lawyer Larry Gadon at the House of Representatives on Aug. 30 last year.

It was only last March 8 this year when the House committee on justice found probable cause to impeach Sereno. The House leadership, however, has held in abeyance the plenary action on the Sereno impeachment complaint after the SC quo warranto ruling against her.

The second regular sessions of the 17th Congress winds down on sine die adjournment this week. Both chambers would resume for the third and last regular sessions on July 23 for the traditional joint opening for the next state of the nation address of President Rodrigo Duterte.

Leaders of the Lower House earlier declared they decided to wait for the High Court to rule on Sereno’s motion for reconsideration. If the SC sustains her quo warranto removal as Chief Justice, Gadon’s impeachment case against her would be dismissed.

As non-lawyers, we ask what exactly does quo warranto mean?

Through a search in Google.com, quo warranto is defined as a special form of legal action used to resolve a dispute over whether a specific person has the legal right to hold the public office that he or she occupies. 

Curiously, I recall the first time I heard this legal term quo warranto was from presidential political adviser Francis Tolentino when he was our guest at the Kapihan sa Manila Bay breakfast forum last Jan. 31 this year. During that forum, Tolentino was mulling to file his quo warranto petition against Senator Leila de Lima with whom he has a pending protest before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET).

Tolentino has been contesting at the SET De Lima’s win over him in the 12th and last spot at the Senate race during the May 2016 elections. Tolentino ran under the Senate ticket of then Davao City Mayor Duterte – the PDP-Laban presidential standard-bearer. De Lima, on the other hand, ran and won the 12th spot under the Liberal Party Senate ticket.

A lawyer by profession, Tolentino was already toying with the idea of availing this legal avenue long before quo warranto proceedings were initiated by the Sol-Gen against Sereno. Tolentino explained his planned quo warranto petition against De Lima would seek to disqualify her as Senator for failure to declare her statement of contributions and expenditures (SOCE) that she allegedly received from detained drug lord Herbert Colangco.

Tolentino pointed to an affidavit issued by Colangco in September 2016 before the House committee that investigated the alleged illegal drugs trade inside the New Bilibid Prison at Muntinlupa City during the term of De Lima as Justice Secretary. In that affidavit, Colangco claimed De Lima, through her security aide and alleged bagman, received millions of kickbacks from drug trade supposedly to fund the former justice secretary’s senatorial bid.

To date, however, Tolentino has not filed a quo warranto petition against De Lima. Obviously, by doing so, he could be accused of forum-shopping since the SET has yet to start the votes-recount he sought out. A former election lawyer herself, De Lima has not filed any counter-protest against Tolentino. She remains in detention though at Camp Crame in Quezon City on alleged illegal drugs conspiracy charges filed before the Muntinlupa regional trial court.

While waiting for Sereno’s appeal to the SC, the battle for quo warranto petitions would probably shift to the Commission on Elections (Comelec). That is, if Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Undersecretary for barangay affairs Martin Diño would make good his threat to initiate quo warranto proceeding to disqualify several hundreds of newly elected barangay chairmen and kagawad officials who won in the just concluded barangay polls last May 14.

In our Kapihan sa Manila Bay last Wednesday, Diño threatened to initiate quo warranto petitions, especially against barangay officials who are in the “narco list” of President Duterte and won allegedly using illegal drugs money in vote-buying spree. As earlier feared by President Duterte, Diño lamented, they have received at the DILG verified complaints and affidavits of rampant vote buying with amounts ranging from P500 to P3,000 by these accused “narco” barangay officials.

Aside from illegal drugs, Diño disclosed, there are at least 600 barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) officials who won even as they had already served three consecutive terms. Under our country’s laws, Diño cited, such three-termer barangay officials are deemed disqualified from filing their candidacy.

Diño was particularly aghast in the case of a certain Michael Breva who was earlier convicted by the Ombudsman and meted out perpetual disqualification from holding public office but was elected chairman of Bgy.139 in Caloocan City. “Kaya naiiyak ako sa Comelec,” Diño rued.

With the precedent case of Sereno’s quo warranto proceeding, Diño does not need to shed tears to challenge an individual’s right to hold a public office. He must do it soon before these barangay officials could assume public office starting July 1.