THE Supreme Court will deliberate on the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida seeking the removal of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno during its summer sessions in Baguio City that start today, Tuesday.
A highly placed source said the high court justices will determine whether or not to give due course and to acquire jurisdiction on the petition, one of the issues raised by Sereno in seeking the dismissal of the case.
“The Court has to resolve the issue on jurisdiction first before it can proceed to the resolution of the merits of the petition,” the source said.
He made his statement even as the Coalition for Justice on Monday urged the Supreme Court to uphold judicial independence and due process by throwing out the quo warranto petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General against Sereno.
In a statement, the CFJ said the high court should stand up against oppression and injustice as manifested in the case of the Chief Justice who, it said, was fighting all kinds of attempts to remove her from office–including extra-constitutional means.
In her answer to the quo warranto petition, Sereno sought to dismiss the petition on technical grounds, particularly for its alleged lack of jurisdiction and violation of the one-year prescription period for filing such case.
Sereno says the high court has no jurisdiction and authority to remove her from office because the 1987 Constitution says she can only be ousted by impeachment in Congress as an impeachable official.
She says impeachable officials including herself and all high court justices may only be removed from office upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
However, Calida maintains that Sereno could be covered by a quo warranto case, which is different and independent from the ongoing impeachment proceedings in Congress.
“The Constitution does not include ineligibility to public position as a ground for impeachment. No one can be convicted for ineligibility,” Calida said.
“The sole purpose of impeachment proceedings is to hold a public officer accountable for wrongdoings committed in office. On the other hand, the quo warranto proceedings instituted by the Solicitor General seeks to oust Respondent because she is ineligible to be the Chief Justice.
“In other words, the Solicitor General is not asking the Court to remove Respondent for impeachable offenses: it is not the concern of the petition. Instead, the Solicitor General has good reason to believe that Respondent has no authority to occupy the esteemed office of the Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines.”
In the petition filed on March 5, Calida asked the high court to nullify Sereno’s appointment over her ineligibility for the top judicial post and order her removal from office as a de facto official whose authority was allegedly hinged on an appointment that was void from the start.
He said Sereno did not meet the specific qualification of proven integrity for the chief justice post with her failure to comply with the required submission of 10-year Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.
