(Eagle News) — In its landmark decision against Maria Lourdes Sereno, the Supreme Court explained when a quo warranto petition can be resorted to against public officials, and made a distinction between the legal resort and impeachment, which some have argued was the only constitutional way to remove an impeachable official like the Chief Justice.
In its 153-page decision, the Supreme Court said a quo warranto petition “as a remedy to oust a public official” may be availed of “when the subject act or omission was committed prior to or at the time of appointment or election relating to an official’s qualifications to hold office as to render such appointment or election invalid.”
According to the SC, this was “provided that the requisites commencement thereof are present.”
The “acts or omissions, even if it relates to the qualification of integrity being a continuing requirement but nonetheless committed during the incumbency of a validly appointed and/or validly elected official,” however, “cannot be the subject of a quo warranto proceeding but of impeachment if the public official concerned is impeachable and the act or omission constitutes an impeachable offense, or to disciplinary, administrative or criminal action, if otherwise,” the SC said.
In particular, members of the judiciary, who are “bound by the qualifications of honesty, probity, competence and integrity,” may also be the subject of a quo warranto “provided it is filed within one year from the appointment or discovery of the defect.”
It said this was if the candidate was appointed “despite being unable to comply with the requirements of the (Judicial and Bar Council) and despite the lack of the aforementioned qualifications at the time of the application.”
Should there be changes to such JBC requirements that the candidate should comply with, such as the number of Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth they should submit for instance, these should be agreed upon by the JBC en banc through a proper deliberation and “should also be announced and published for the same purpose of apprising the candidates and the public of such changes.”
It said that “only” the Solicitor General may institute the quo warranto petition.
Voting 8-6, the SC granted Solicitor General Jose Calida’s quo warranto petition, nullifying Sereno’s appointment as Chief Justice.
The High Court also ordered Sereno to show-cause why she should not be sanctioned for violating the sub judice rule and for “casting aspersions and ill motives to members of the Supreme Court.”
