The Supreme Court is expected to resolve next month the quo warranto petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio said Thursday.
“We hope to decide on it as soon as we can. By next month we should be able to decide on it,” Carpio told reporters.
The acting chief magistrate admitted that he expects the completion of the draft decision on the case soon, but he refused to elaborate on it.
“I cannot talk about that but we hope to finish it by end of May,” Carpio said.
The acting chief justice made the statement as both petitioner Solicitor General Jose Calida and Sereno are expected to submit their respective memorandum today, April 20.
After the oral arguments held at the Supreme Court Session Hall in Baguio City, Carpio, who presided over the hearing on the quo warranto petition, required the parties to submit their respective memorandum and documents today, without extension.
The quo warranto petition is a prerogative writ requiring the person to whom it is directed to show what authority he or she has in exercising some right or power the person claims to hold—in this case, Sereno as chief justice of the Supreme Court.
Calida questioned the validity of Sereno’s appointment as top magistrate on the ground that the chief justice allegedly lacks integrity when she supposedly failed to completely file her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth or SALN.
After submission of their respective memoranda, the quo warranto case is deemed submitted for decision.
Opposition Senators Leila de Lima and Antonio Trillanes IV on Thursday prodded the Supreme Court to dismiss the quo warranto petition against Sereno due to lack of jurisdiction.
In a motion, the De Lima and Trillanes argued that Sereno may only be removed through the impeachment process in Congress and only once the Senate sitting as impeachment court finds her guilty.
The intervenors also cited the “hostile environment” in the Court and the “lack of impartiality” of some SC justices that have allegedly “clouded” the case.
“With all due respect to the honorable Court, the proceedings last April 10 cannot honestly be considered as wholly impartial, as to satisfy the due process requirement that those who shall here, try, and decide cases ought to possess the cold neutrality of impartial judges,” the senators said, referring to the oral arguments on the case where Sereno had a shouting match with one of her colleagues.