spot_img
28 C
Philippines
Thursday, March 28, 2024

Calida’s quo warranto petition

- Advertisement -

The distinction between quo warranto and impeachment was discussed in last Tuesday’s essay, written in the wake of the petition for quo warranto filed in the Supreme Court by Solicitor General Jose Calida.  It seeks to declare the appointment of Maria Lourdes Sereno as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, signed in 2012 by then President Benigno Aquino III, void ab initio (from the very beginning).

“‹As pointed out last week, where the appointment of a justice of the Supreme Court is valid to begin with, but that same justice later on commits any of the acts enumerated under Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution, that justice may be removed from office exclusively through the process of impeachment.  

“‹Under Section 2, Article XI, those acts are culpable violation of the Constitution—treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal of the public trust.

“‹On the other hand, if the appointment of a justice of the Supreme Court is void from the beginning, due to the failure of the appointee to qualify for office from the very start, then the proper remedy against that justice is a petition for quo warranto which, translated from the Latin literally means “where is your authority?”  An impeachment proceeding will not be proper because impeachment presupposes a valid appointment to begin with.

“‹Last Tuesday’s essay criticized Vice President Leni Robredo and Senator Antonio Trillanes IV for issuing separate but identical press statements which only highlighted their inability to understand basic Constitutional Law.  

- Advertisement -

“‹It was also mentioned in last week’s essay that the solicitor general is authorized by law to initiate, with or without any directive from the President of the Philippines, quo warranto proceedings against any public official whose appointment or election to office is void.  The petition is filed by the solicitor general in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.

“‹In sum, last week’s essay pointed out that a justice of the Supreme Court may be the subject of a quo warranto petition if the appointment of the justice is void from the start, or of an impeachment proceeding if that justice committed any of the acts enumerated as grounds for impeachment and removal from office under Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution.

“‹There are, however, possible infirmities in Calida’spetition for quo warranto. 

“‹First, the rules of court procedure provide that a petition for quo warranto must be filed within one year from the date of the alleged void appointment.  Sereno was appointed chief justice five years ago, in 2012.  

“‹In rebuttal, the solicitor general may argue that the infirmity in the appointment of Sereno was discovered only two weeks ago, after two justices of the Supreme Court told the Senate that Sereno failed to submit to the Judicial and Bar Council her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth covering the 10 years of her public service prior to her appointment as chief justice.  That period covers Sereno’s tenure as a faculty member of the University of the Philippines College of Law, and her two-year stint as associate justice of the Supreme Court.

“‹The solicitor general may possibly contend that the JBC, which by 2012 was already headed by Sereno in an ex officio capacity as chief justice, concealed this infirmity from the proper authorities to protect its ex officio head.

“‹Likewise, the solicitor general may insist that the one-year deadline does not apply when the infirmity concerns a continuing qualification imposed on the public office concerned.  In other words, the lapse of more than a year does not eradicate the obligation of Sereno to submit the required SALN to the JBC. If Sereno has not complied with that requirement until today, then she never qualified for appointment as chief justice. 

 Second, for quo warranto to prosper, the justice must have failed to qualify for appointment, that is, he did not meet the qualifications set forth by the Constitution for his appointment as justice.

“‹Section 7(1), Article VIII of the Constitution enumerates the qualifications for appointment to the Supreme Court—the applicant must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at least 40 years of age, and a judge of a lower court or a practicing lawyer, for at least 15 years prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court.

“‹The submission of documentary requirements like the SALN is not among the qualifications listed in the Constitution.  That requirement is imposed by the JBC.  May the JBC, therefore, add to the qualifications mandated by the Constitution?

“‹Post-war Philippine jurisprudence suggests that Congress cannot add to the qualifications for justices of the Supreme Court set forth by the Constitution.  This means that if an elected assembly like Congress cannot add to what is required by the Constitution for appointments to the Supreme Court, then with greater reason should the prohibition apply to the JBC.  

“‹In other words, non-compliance with the SALN requirement on the part of Sereno is not a ground to warrant relief under quo warranto.   

“‹Such non-compliance, however, is a ground for impeachment and removal following the precedent established in the 2012 impeachment trial of the late Chief Justice Renato Corona, who was ousted from office by the Senate for his failure to submit his SALN, which is required by the Constitution from justices of the Supreme Court. 

“‹When the JBC included Sereno in the list of persons qualified for the post of chief justice—a list submitted to then President Aquino III in 2012—the JBC is deemed to have waived the SALN requirement as to Sereno.  That waiver may work well against the Calida petition.  

“‹Nonetheless, the JBC must explain why it included Sereno in the list of qualified applicants for the chief justice post even if she did not comply with the SALN submission requirement, while other applicants were mandated to do so by the JBC.  If no satisfactory explanation is given by the JBC, its members may face anti-graft raps.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles