CHIEF Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on Thursday sought the inhibition of four Supreme Court associate justices from participating in the deliberation and resolution of the quo warranto petition filed against her by Solicitor General Jose Calida, which seeks to nullify her appointment to the post.
In separate motions, Sereno asked for the recusal of Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza and Noel Tijam from the deliberation and resolution of the quo warranto petition, saying they were biased against her.
The magistrates had testified against Sereno in the impeachment proceedings conducted by the House of the Representatives committee on justice.
Sereno said the refusal of the four SC justices to inhibit from the case would constitute “a willful and intentional violation” of her constitutional right to due process.
In seeking the inhibition of Jardeleza, Sereno cited the latter’s testimony before the House committee on justice in relation to the charge that she manipulated the shortlist of the Judicial and Bar Council to exclude his name for personal and political reasons.
“There is a reasonable basis to conclude from Justice Jardeleza’s testimony that he harbored ill feelings towards the chief justice as a consequence of the latter’s challenge to his integrity during the nomination process for the associate justice position in 2014,” Sereno said.
In seeking the recusal of Tijam, Sereno cited his testimony before the impeachment hearing where he admitted that there may be a ground to impeach her and, therefore, remove her from office for culpable violation of the Constitution.
“With all due respect to Justice Tijam, the chief justice is of the honest and earnest belief that he cannot decide the quo warranto petition objectively and impartially. The chief justice has reasonable basis to believe that Justice Tijam has already formed an opinion that the chief justice should be removed from office,” Sereno’s motion said.
“Such apparent bias against the chief justice would have the inevitable effect of impairing Justice Tijam’s objectivity and would also tend to cast doubt on his ability to render an impartial judgment,” she said.
Sereno said Peralta recuse himself for testifying before the House and expressing his view that she should have been disqualified from nomination for the chief justice position due to her failure to submit to the Judicial and Bar Council her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth for the years that she was employed as a professor of the University of the Philippines.
As the ex-officio chairperson of the JBC when the she was nominated for appointment as chief justice, Peralta would have personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings.
Sereno said Peralta also served as a material witness in the impeachment proceedings in connection with her SALN.
“Again, with due respect to Justice Peralta, the chief justice, respectfully believes that his personal knowledge of facts involved in this case, might impair his objectivity and impartiality. The tendency would be for him to decide the case based on his evidence and arguments on record. There is no way to reasonably ensure that he would succumb to this tendency,” the motion stated.
Bersamin had accused Sereno of acting like a dictator in exercising her leadership over the court and violating the collegial nature of the SC when he testified during the House proceedings on the impeachment complaint against the chief magistrate.
“The chief justice believes that the foregoing statements are not mere innocuous remarks but are expressions of what may be considered as Justice Bersamin’s personal animosity towards her,” the motion said.
Sereno has vowed to attend and answer questions from her colleagues during the oral argument on the case set on April 10 in Baguio City.
Sereno has earlier asked the Court to dismiss the OSG’s petition on technical grounds, particularly for lack of jurisdiction and violation of the one-year prescription period for the filing of such petitions.
She said the Court has no jurisdiction and authority to remove her from office because the 1987 Constitution provides that she can only be ousted by impeachment in Congress.
A quo warranto proceeding is initiated against an individual who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office.
Sereno, who was forced to go on indefinite leave upon the prodding of her fellow magistrates, cited Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution which provides that impeachable officials, which include all members of the Court, may only be removed from office upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, sitting as anӬimpeachment court.
Sereno said the petition should be dismissed not only because of the Constitution and jurisprudence so demand, “but also because the chief justice deserves her day in court before the Senate sitting as an impeachment tribunal.”
On Thursday, the Court ordered Sereno to appear for oral arguments on Tuesday next week and testify under oath on the truth and veracity of the allegations filed by counsels on her behalf.
Two opposition senators, meanwhile, filed a motion before the Supreme Court seeking to intervene to register their opposition to the quo warranto petition filed against Sereno.
Senators Leila de Lima and Antonio Trillanes IV said Calida’s argument that Sereno does not possess the constitutional requirement of “integrity” is a matter best left to the Senate to decide.
Both De Lima and Trillanes maintained that by express provision of the Constitution, Sereno is only removable from office exclusively by impeachment, which invalidates Calida’s petition. With Macon Ramos-Araneta