A national broadsheet’s headline yesterday said: “Sereno ouster a done deal.”
I can believe that. Logic and reason dictate that the quo warranto case against Supreme Court Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno clearly questions her qualifications as head of the judiciary.
It was shown that Sereno failed to file all her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and to pay her taxes correspondingly.
While there is a constitutional provision on impeaching specific officials, the quo warranto proceedings exist as an option in questioning such officials’ appointment in the first place.
A quo warranto case is thus justified to question Sereno’s assumption as chief justice. We must distinguish between quo warranto and impeachment.
The argument foisted by Sereno and her ilk is known as “building a strawman,” meaning that the argument has not logic to stand on.
The quo warranto case questions her right to be chief justice for her failure, intentionally or otherwise, to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Constitution, failure in which would amount to betrayal of public trust. This not only applies to impeachable officials, but to all government employees.
The same article says public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
The above provision is very clear. It leaves no room for doubt.
And then we come to Section 17 of Article XI which can apply to Sereno despite the fact that she is an impeachable public official. The Constitution provides that a public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office, and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets liabilities and net worth. In the case of the President, Vice President, members of the Cabinet, Congress, the Supreme Court and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.
In the case of Sereno, her ouster then could be in means other than impeachment.
For her and her lawyers to argue that the quo warranto proceeding will lead to tyranny shows flawed thinking.
There is talk that Justices Marvic Leonen and Benjamin Caguioa may vote for Sereno. This is not surprising —they were Aquino appointees.
Justice Antonio Carpio is also predicted to vote for Sereno—although I doubt that, since I know Carpio knows his law.
From my point of view, Sereno is history. Only a miracle will save her. Goodbye, Madam Chief Justice!
* * *
In the light of the coming decision on Sereno’s fate, I wonder: Do all public officers and employees comply with the SALN requirement?
I don’t think so. The Civil Service Commission does not require such compliance.
The real intention of this requirement is to know the assets and liabilities of officials when they started in government, and whether they enriched themselves.
It may be difficult to comply with this, but it is a reminder that government service is mostly a sacrifice, and not a way to enrich oneself.
* * *
The appointment of Bernadette Romulo Puyat as the new secretary of tourism could help enable the country to compete with our neighbors in terms of attracting foreign tourists.
Berna is the daughter of my good friend, former Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert Romulo. She comes in untainted, as her father had remained all throughout his stay in government.
Berna’s job is basically marketing and promotions. In other words, she will be a salesperson who will promote our hospitality as a people and our stunning natural resources.
