[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’Sereno urges SC: Nix quo warranto petition’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’18’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=” av-medium-font-size-title=” av-small-font-size-title=” av-mini-font-size-title=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
BY ADRIAN STEWART CO
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=’18’ font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
MANILA – On leave Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno urged her colleagues at the high court to nullify the quo warranto petition the Office of the Solicitor General filed against her.
Citing “lack of jurisdiction and merit,” Sereno – through lawyers led by Atty. Alexander Poblador – sought in a 77-page comment the dismissal of the petition questioning her appointment in 2012.
“The SC has no authority to remove me from office via quo warranto because the 1987 Constitution specifically mentioned the officials that can only be removed by impeachment,” Sereno said.
“The SC cannot take cognizance of or give due course to the (solicitor general’s petition) without running afoul of the plain dictates of the fundamental law and established judicial precedents,” she added.
Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution stated that impeachable officials, which include all members of the Supreme Court, may be removed from office only upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court.
The high court itself consistently applied this provision as a limitation on its power to remove public officers.
“The quo warranto petition should not be entertained at all for being time-barred,” read part of the comment. “The Chief Justice deserves her day in court before the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Tribunal.”
“To rule otherwise, and to preempt the impeachment process by summarily ousting the Chief Justice via quo warranto, would be tantamount to overthrowing the Constitution itself,” it read.
In an order on Tuesday, the Supreme Court en banc directed Solicitor General Jose Calida to submit a reply to Sereno’s comment within five days upon receipt of the order.
In initiating the petition for quo warranto, Calida alleged that Sereno was not qualified to become chief justice.
He said Sereno could consider the move as “an act of kindness to a fellow lawyer” as it would spare her from the “indignity” of an impeachment./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
