By Jonathan Dela Cruz
If we go by the reports, by now some 14 senators should have signed a resolution urging the Supreme Court to review its decision ousting Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno as Chief Justice on quo warranto.
The resolution principally authored by Liberal Party President Francis Pangilinan and co-authored by Senators Angara, Poe, Aquino and Senate President Pimentel (all of whom are expected to run for reelection next year); Drilon, Hontiveros, de Lima and Trillanes (all of whom together with Pangilinan make up the Senate minority) and Senate President Pro Tempore Recto, Escudero, Legarda, Villanueva and Gatchalian (all of whom usually vote with the majority and considered part of the ruling coalition) anchored their demand on what they considered three fundamental issues, namely, executive overreach (the SolGen, a presidential appointee now has a new weapon against impeachable officials), judicial independence and with it the separation of powers of the three main branches of government.
It should be noted that seven of the 14 signatories (Drilon, Trillanes, Pimente, Escudero, Recto, Legarda and Pangilinan) were part of the Group of 20 who voted to oust then Chief Justice Corona in 2011 on the highly questionable ground of not filing the correct SALN. This, despite the fact that Corona was able to explain and was poised to correct his SALN as provided for by law and, more importantly, exposed the manipulations made on his alleged wealth which were meant to publicly shame and seal his ouster.
Why these senators have put this issue at the center of national debate at this point when their time and energy should instead be devoted to other more pressing matters —such as, among others, the review and codification of all labor and employment laws, for example, to ensure that the matter of Endo (labor-only contracting) affecting millions of our workers in both public and private sectors and the travails of our OFWs as well as the optimization of their benefits and contributions to society, the sad state of our agricultural sector and the ever increasing power and water rates, both of which should cause concern from their elected officials—is beside me.
Aside from putting pressure on the justices and showing off their wares in a contrived debate on a constitutional issue, there is absolutely nothing that the signatories can actually do about Sereno’s fall from grace. If only they have dispassionately read the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Calida, the reply of then Chief Justice Sereno and the 153-page SC ruling penned by Justice Tijam together with the other concurring and even dissenting opinions, they would have come to the conclusion that the issue has been discussed to death so that no amount of perorations can make a difference at this point.
In fact, by coming out with this resolution, the senators only showed that their antipathy towards their equals in the judiciary. They have no regard for the independence they are so passionat about. They want the justices to bow down to their wishes. Or else. At the very least, they should have shown a modicum of respect for the members of an equal and separate branch of government. After all, in other, more convenient for each of them, times all of them have bowed to the rulings of the Supreme Court. How many times have we heard all of the signatories at one point of their public life (maybe even private lives if as much as favors their point of view) say that the Supreme Court has spoken, we may not agree with their ruling but we have to accept it. It is now the law of the land.
Which is as it should be if we are to be, as these honorable men are wont to say, a country of laws not of men. After all, the constitutional provisions of the powers of the Supreme Court and the Senate which actually form an integral part of this contrived debate are very clear.
Article VIII, Section 5(g) states: “The Supreme Court shall exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus.” On the other hand, Article XI, Section 3 (b) states: “ The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.” Corollary to this, the Constitution also states that the House of Representatives has the sole power to initiate impeachment proceedings against any official who may be (not shall be) removed from office by impeachment. That is as simple as any can be.
What the earlier petitions filed by Sereno supporters and repeated by the 14 signatories want is disregard the above constitutional injunctions and remake these to conform with their own questionable proposition. That should not be allowed at all as clearly violative of the Constitution.
By the way, just to clear the air and put the SC ruling in perspective: the 8-6 ruling was only to affirm quo warranto as another means to remove an impeachable official and thus Sereno’s ouster as Chief Justice having been “..adjudged guilty of unlawfully holding and exercising the Office of Chief Justice…” In fact, on the matter of whether a quo warranto case can be filed against and be used to oust any impeachable official quite apart from impeachment, the voting was 9-5 with Justice Velasco agreeing with the majority.
And even as the voting appeared to be close, Acting Chief Justice Carpio opined that indeed Sereno committed grave, impeachable offenses but that she should be tried before the Senate as an impeachment court instead of being ousted on quo warranto, a position which Justices Velasco, Perlas-Bernabe and del Castillo also took per our Court insiders. That makes the voting on Sereno’s offenses and performance, or should we say, disposition as Chief Justice almost unanimous at 12-2. So, with those figures will the Group of 14’s resolution matter to the justices and even to an informed public, at all? I seriously doubt it.