The Supreme Court on Tuesday required the Office of the Solicitor General to comment on the appeal filed by ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno seeking a reversal of the Court’s May 11 decision nullifying her appointment as the top magistrate in 2012.
Jojo Lacanilao, Sereno’s spokesman, said they were encouraged that the Justices had given themselves more time to appreciate the new arguments, facts, and matters that made the reconsideration of the May 11 Decision compelling.
“Unless reconsidered, that Decision will wreak havoc on the basic premise of judicial decisions, which is fair play in an impartial tribunal, consistency with judicial precedents and as important, the preservation of the constitutional checks and balance,” Lacanilao said in a statement.
Meanwhile, Malacañang on Tuesday hit back at Sereno for insinuating that the continued firing of government officials accused of corruption might be just for show.
Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque Jr. even went as far as suggesting that Sereno needed mental health intervention, in an apparent reference to the allegations she was unfit for office due to her poor psychiatric record while applying for the post of chief justice in 2012.
During its en banc session, the high court adopted a resolution ordering Solicitor General Jose Calida to submit his comment on the motion for reconsideration filed by Sereno, who was ousted by the Court after finding her guilty of violating the constitution when she failed to submit her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth when she applied for the post of chief justice.
“The Court directed the Solicitor General comment on respondent’s ad cautelam motion for reconsideration within a non-extendible period of five days from notice,” the resolution said.
After the OSG submits its comment, the 16-member bench is expected to resolve Sereno’s appeal within this month upon the return of Associate Justice Noel Tijam from his sabbatical leave or service incentive leave.
In her motion for reconsideration, Sereno insisted that the high court had no jurisdiction to hear and resolve the quo warranto petition filed by Calida, which sought the nullification of her appointment as chief justice.
Being an impeachable officer, according to her, she could only be removed through impeachment proceedings in the Senate.
Sereno said the nullification of her appointment through the quo warranto petition was null and void as it was rendered in violation of her right to due process due to the refusal of six of her colleagues to inhibit from the case.
Sereno said an impartial tribunal was an “indispensable prerequisite of due process.”
She said the disqualification of the six magistrates was mandatory because they were biased.
Among those that Sereno wanted to inhibit from the case were Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam, Lucas Bersamin and Samuel Martires.
Sereno said the tribunal should have exercised judicial restraint to avoid the possibility of a constitutional crisis, considering that Congress was the only constitutional body mandated to conduct proceedings against impeachable officers.
Besides, Sereno said, even if the Court had jurisdiction over her, the petition should have also been dismissed due to the failure of the petitioner to prove any wrongdoing on her part in connection with the filing of her SALNs.