Sereno slated to attend
By Moira Encina
Eagle News Service
The Supreme Court is slated to hold oral arguments on the quo warranto petition filed against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on Tuesday, April 10.
For the first time, Sereno is slated to face her colleagues, some of whom testified against her in House impeachment proceedings against her.
She snubbed the House proceedings.
Sereno has asked Associate Justices Teresita de Castro, Noel Tijam, Bienvenido Reyes and Francis Jardeleza to inhibit themselves from the quo warranto proceedings, citing what she said were their bias and animosity toward her.
The oral arguments are slated at 2 p.m. in Baguio, where the justices are holding their summer session.
Media have a designated area where they can monitor the proceedings via live streaming.
The oral arguments take place a day after House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez vowed to speed up the impeachment process against Sereno in the House, in compliance with President Rodrigo Duterte’s call.
Duterte made the pronouncement prior to his departure to China on Monday, April 9, apparently irked at Sereno’s insinuations he was behind the ouster moves against her despite his repeated denials.
Rules of Court on quo warranto
Earlier in the day, Sereno questioned why it was Solicitor General Jose Calida who filed the quo warranto petition against her.
But according to Section 1, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, the government, through a verified petition, can file a quo warranto petition against an individual illegally occupying public office.
Based on Section 2, the Solicitor General or public prosecutor can file the petition if the President orders him or her to do so, if he or she receives a complaint, or if the Solicitor General has reason to believe the quo warranto proceedings are warranted.
Section 3 also states that the Solicitor General or fiscal can pursue quo warranto proceedings if the court where the petition will be filed allows it to be filed based on the request of an individual.
The OSG has argued the quo warranto petition it filed stemmed from a letter of request for the same issued by Atty. Eligio Mallari on Feb. 21, 2018.
If the Solicitor General files the quo warranto petition then, it can be filed before the Manila Regional Trial Court, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, based on Section 7, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court.
Jurisdictional issues
Sereno has also argued the SC had no jurisdiction over the petition, which seeks to have her appointment as Chief Justice annulled over her alleged lack of integrity when she “failed to declare her assets and liabilities in accordance with law.”
She has been consistent in her position she can only be removed via impeachment.
Four groups have also asked the SC to allow them to intervene and push for the dismissal of the petition, but the High Court has already dismissed two of them–the one filed by progressive lawmakers and the other filed by supposed concerned citizens.
The High Court “noted” the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ petition and has yet to announce what its action was on that filed by Senators Leila de Lima and Antonio Trillanes IV.
Other issues
Twelve issues, including whether or not the SC has jurisdiction over the petition and whether or not she can be granted relief since she refuses to acknowledge the SC’s jurisdiction over the petition, will be tackled during the oral arguments.
According to an SC advisory, the other issues include:
- Whether or not the respondent filed her SALN as required by the Constitution, law, implementing regulations, and the JBC Rules in relation to her application for the position of Chief Justice;
- Whether or not the failure to file the SALN will invalidate her appointment as Chief Justice;
- Whether or not the Certification issued by the University of the Philippines Human Resources Development Office dated December 8, 2017, stating that its records contain only respondent’s SALN for the year 2002; and the Certification issued by the Office of the Ombudsman dated December 4, 2017, stating that there is no SALN filed by the respondent except for her SALN ending December 1998, are false;
- Whether or not the petition for quo warranto should be granted;
- Whether or not the submission of the SALN carries the same weight as the requirements for the judiciary enumerated in Section 7, Article VIII of the Constitution;
- Whether or not the SALN is the only way of determining if respondent is a person of proven integrity;
- Whether or not the Judicial and Bar Council’s (JBC) determination if a person is of proven integrity is a political question beyond this Court’s power of judicial review;
- Whether or not the Court, in the exercise of its supervisory power over the JBC, can void the JBC’s act of including respondent in the shortlist for the position of Chief Justice; and
- Whether or not the JBC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it included respondent in the shortlist for Chief Justice despite her disclosure of her failure to attach all of her past SALNs to her application