Two administration lawmakers on Thursday expressed hope that President Rodrigo Duterte will appoint a “morally upright” Chief Justice “with unquestioned integrity, incorruptible, irreproachable.”
Reps. Raneo Abu of Batangas and Rodolfo Albano III of Isabela also said the SC’s final ruling on the ouster of Maria Lourdes Sereno should open a new chapter in the judiciary’s history by focusing on the Judicial and Bar Council selection process for the nomination of the country’s next Chief Justice.
“After due process was served, it is time to move on. We have close this chapter in the history of judiciary. Let’s work together to ensure that the next Chief Justice is fit, morally upright with unquestioned integrity, incorruptible, irreproachable, and has adequate ability or skill to lead and strengthen the judiciary,” said Abu, a deputy speaker.
Representatives’ contingent to Commission on Appointments, said the emphasis now should be the JBC whose task is to submit to President Duterte a shortlist of names vying for the Chief Justice post.
“We have to move forward now because this is the best for the country to strengthen the judiciary,” said Albano.
Abu also appealed for calm as he urged the public to respect the SC ruling.
“Let us be an advocate of sobriety by respecting the authority of the Supreme Court being the last bulwark of democracy,” said Abu.
Albano said the high court’s ruling affirming its earlier decision to unseat Sereno was expected and that the camp of the former chief justice must respect the high court’s ruling.
Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra is also of the opinion that the Supreme Court was “correct” in its decision to oust Sereno.
But at the same time, Guevarra said the rules may need some tweaking to avoid a similar controversial situation in the future.
Guevarra said he respects the lSC decision and wishes not to “inflame any controversy” that surrounds it.
“But if I may suggest, in order to avoid a similar situation in the future, now the Constitution is proposed to be amended, we’d rather make it very clear in the Constitution that the only way — only way — to remove impeachable officers will be by impeachment,” he said in a television interview.
“Otherwise, the Supreme Court may change the Rules of Court pertaining to quo warranto and make it very clear likewise that even impeachable officers may be subjected to quo warranto. Either way, the need is to clarify,” he said.
Sereno was voted out of office after her colleagues at the Supreme Court granted the ‘quo warranto’ petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida.’s petition for quo warranto, which questioned her eligibility as chief justice because she had allegedly failed td to file her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).
Eight of the 14 justices voted to grant the petition despite Sereno’s main contention that she could only be
removed from office through impeachment and conviction before the legislature.
Section 2, Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution says members of the SC “may” be removed from office through impeachment. The quo warranto, on the other hand, is an action available against, among others, a person who “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise,” according to the Rules of Court.
The decision on Sereno earned mixed reactions, with some branding the justices’ decision as unconstitutional.
But Guevarra, who has worked for both President Rodrigo Duterte and his predecessor Benigno Aquino III, said the SC decision was correct.
“Actually, if you are asking me about my personal opinion as a law professor, I think the decision was correct… Yes, in so far as making a distinction between quo warranto and impeachment as a mode of removing a justice of the Supreme Court,” he said.
Guevarra was formerly a law professor at the Ateneo de Manila University.