MANILA – After the Supreme Court (SC) affirmed its decision on the quo warranto petition against ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, several senators on Tuesday maintained their stand that impeachment is the appropriate process to remove Sereno from office.
The SC en banc earlier Tuesday denied with finality Sereno’s plea to reverse the Court’s May 11, 2018 decision.
With the same 8-6 vote, the magistrates stood by its earlier decision on the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida.
Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon warned that with the SC decision, any impeachable officials could now be removed through a quo warranto petition.
Sereno’s ouster from the High Court marks the first time that a chief justice was removed through a quo warranto petition.
“As I said at the start of all of these questions (on quo warranto), this is a slippery slope. Now, any officer who is subject to impeachment can now be removed through a quo warranto proceeding,” he said in an ambush interview.
Drilon was among 14 senators who signed a Senate resolution, asserting Congress' exclusive power to remove impeachable officials and urging the high tribunal to review its decision to oust Sereno through a quo warranto petition.
Apart from Drilon, the other signatories were then Senate President Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph Recto, Senators Joel Villanueva, Loren Legarda, Sherwin Gatchalian, Francis Escudero, Sonny Angara, Grace Poe, Francis Pangilinan, Paolo Benigno Aquino IV, Risa, Hontiveros, Antonio Trillanes IV and detained Senator Leila de Lima.
The resolution points out that the SC’s May 11 decision “sets a dangerous precedent that transgresses the exclusive powers of the legislative branch to initiate, try, and decide all cases of impeachment.”
Drilon said the SC decision would also now make it difficult for the Senate to adopt the resolution.
The Senate failed to adopt the resolution before it adjourned sine die after Senator Panfilo Lacson challenged it in plenary.
“As a practical matter, the majority in the Senate can assert that the issue is now academic and would therefore be reluctant to debate on the quo warranto resolution,” Drilon said.
“While personally I still believe that there is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion on a decision of the SC, the majority may feel that we can express our individual beliefs on the quo warranto but not the Senate as an institution,” Drilon said.
However, the veteran lawmaker clarified that the resolution only wishes to express the opinion of the Senate and does not seek to impose its opinion on anyone.
Senator Joel Villanueva also maintained that impeachment remains to be the proper venue for the removal of Sereno.
“From the very beginning I have stressed my position that the appropriate process to discuss the removal of CJ Sereno is through an impeachment process,” he said in a statement.
“Clearly, according to the Constitution, the Senate has the sole responsibility in exacting accountability to judicial appointees or impeachable officers,” Villanueva said.
For his part, Senator Joseph Victor Ejercito said that while he strongly maintains his view on the exclusive constitutional duty of Congress to impeach and try impeachable officials, the SC decision should be respected.
“While I strongly maintain my view that Congress has the exclusive constitutional duty to impeach and try impeachable officials, I also believe in the rule of law,” he said.
“And we cannot correct a mistake with another mistake. Rather than interfere with the affairs of the judiciary, we are duty-bound to respect its decision,” Ejercito said.
He also expressed optimism that the next Chief Justice would start the process of restoring the public’s faith in the judiciary.
“In the meantime, it is my hope that the next Chief Justice will start the process of internal healing and begin restoring the public’s faith in our Supreme Court which has been severely undermined by this sad episode in our history,” Ejercito said.
Meanwhile Senator Francis Pangilinan called the SC decision “unfair” since six of the magistrates who voted to nullify Sereno’s appointment were also her “accusers.”
“The Supreme Court has decided. Of the eight who accused, six belong to the majority who made the decision. The accuser cannot be judge,” the president of the Liberal Party said in a statement.
The eight justices who voted the same as the original decision and denied Sereno’s motion for reconsideration were Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam, Samuel Martires, Andres Reyes Jr, and Alexander Gesmundo.
Sereno had earlier sought the recusal of de Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Jardeleza, Martires and Tijam from the quo warranto proceedings over allegations of being biased against her.
The six dissenters of the majority decision were Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas Bernabe, Marvic Leonen, and Benjamin Caguioa.
“Napakasimpleng batas ito na nakabatay sa napakasimpleng prinsipyo: patas dapat ang batas (This is a very simple law based on a very simple principle: the law should be equal) Because in boxing, the referee cannot join the fight inside the ring. Because it is not fair. It is not right” Pangilinan said.
However, he said the “fight is not yet over.”
“The fight isn't simply confined in the ring. It's in our homes, schools, churches, farms, offices and factories. We need to ask ourselves what we can do as ordinary citizens who cannot allow our fundamental principle of justice to be trampled upon,” Pangilinan said. (PNA)
