The Integrated Bar of the Philippines on Monday urged the Supreme Court to reverse its decision last month ousting Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno from her post.
In a motion for reconsideration the IBP, the mandatory organization of lawyers, filed a motion seeking a reversal of the high court’s ruling even if it is not a party to the case.
The high court did not grant the IBP’s earlier petition for intervention on the quo warranto case against Sereno.
The group submitted its motion even as Sereno on Monday described the Philippines as a country marked by the “worst kind of misogyny in public conversations.”
In a seeming reference to President Rodrigo Duterte, who has been criticized for several “misogynistic” acts and statements, Sereno also said a public official’s seemingly pro-women acts do not excuse all other public behavior.
“It used to be that the previous dispensation and the previous atmosphere was we lauded strong women, we celebrated their successes,” Sereno said at an event at the University of the Philippines Integrated School.
“But now we have seen the worst kind of misogyny in public conversations.”
The IBP backed Sereno’s argument that the matter of removing a chief justice was a political question that should be left to Congress through impeachment proceedings.
The group said the high court ruling should be reconsidered because it was tainted with “political considerations and personal biases.”
It said the high court overstepped its powers and jurisdiction in invalidating the appointment of Sereno in 2012.
“In so doing, the Honorable Court, with all due respect, assumed a role which, by law and jurisprudence, is outside its turf. This constitutes grave and reversible error,” the group said in its motion.
The group said the Court became a trier of facts when it resolved the issue of whether Sereno filed her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth or not.
“In the instant case, the Honorable Court sidestepped this age-old rule and took on the role of a trial court, when it received evidence on the issue of respondent’s alleged non-submission of her SALNs and engaged in an in-depth evaluation of such evidence on record,” the IBP said.
It supported Sereno’s argument that the high court ruling violated the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers since it deprived Congress of its power to try her as an impeachable official.
“The Senate, having been vested with the power to try impeachment cases by the Constitution itself, it behooves the Honorable Court to respect the Constitution’s grant of jurisdiction and refrain from exercising a power clearly bestowed by the Constitution on another Tribunal or otherwise frustrating the exercise of such power by the Constitutional Tribunal,” the IBP said.
The group also accused the Court of overstepping on the power of the Judicial and Bar Council to screen nominees for the judicial posts since the ruling effectively reviewed and voided the inclusion of Sereno in the shortlist.