MANILA – Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno will attend next week the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on the quo warranto petition filed against her.
Currently on leave, Sereno agreed to face her fellow magistrates on April 10 in Baguio City, her spokesperson Atty. Jojo Lacanilao said on Wednesday.
“(Sereno) will be attending the oral arguments on April 10 to give her side on the Petition for Quo Warranto filed by (Solicitor General Jose) Calida,” Lacanilao said in a text message.
Sereno’s camp insisted that the high court should dismiss outright the quo warranto petition for lack of jurisdiction and merit.
Officials like the Supreme Court chief justice may be removed only via impeachment, as stated in the 1987 Constitution, they said.
As it set the oral arguments, the Supreme Court denied a petition seeking intervention in the quo warranto petition, said high court spokesman Atty. Theodore Te.
The former plea was filed by the Makabayan bloc of lawmakers and a group of private individuals.
But the high tribunal took note of the intervention petition filed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Sereno could only be removed through impeachment as stated by the 1987 Constitution, the IBP, through its president Atty. Abdiel Dan Elijah Fajardo, asserted.
On the urging of suspended lawyer Eligio Mallari, Solicitor General Jose Calida initiated the quo warranto petition seeking to nullify the appointment of Sereno.
Under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, a quo warranto proceeding is an action by the government against a person who unlawfully holds a public office or holds a position where they are not qualified.
The solicitor general lauded the Supreme Court’s decision.
“There is no better party to address the petition head-on than Sereno herself,” Calida said on Twitter. “Any other litigant will only unnecessarily add more issues to be resolved by the Supreme Court.”
“The petition for quo warranto presented the issue of whether Sereno is a person of proven integrity as required by the constitution of all members of judiciary,” the top state legal counsel said.
Calida also praised the Supreme Court for denying the petition to intervene.
“Allowing intervenors to participate cannot possibly result in a more expeditious resolution of the issue,” he said.
Calida insisted that a quo warranto proceeding is a “proper remedy to question the validity of Sereno’s appointment.” (Reports from Adrian Stewart Co and Philippine News Agency/PN)
