Ilonggos dismayed by Sereno’s ouster as CJ

ILOILO City – Several Ilonggos, including practicing lawyers, Panay News spoke to were disappointed by the removal of Maria Lourdes Sereno as Supreme Court chief justice.

Supreme Court justices voted for Sereno’s removal 8-6 – a ruling that favored the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida – last Friday.

The decision made Sereno the first constitutional officer removed via a quo warranto plea and not impeachment.

“In a way (I am) disappointed kay ginatudlo gid sa law school nga the only way to remove a sitting impeachable officer is through impeachment,” said Iloilo Provincial Board member Renee Valencia (1st District), a lawyer.

“I was really expecting nga they would go by the provisions of the Constitution, pero waay kita mahimo,” said Valencia.

Kon lower court tani [ang nag-decide], it can be reviewed by the higher court, pero kon ang Supreme Court, whatever they say becomes the law,” she added.

Another lawyer, Honorato P. Sayno Jr., said the decision “embarrassed” him as a practitioner of law.

“What is happening to our democracy? Waay na sang mga controls di, waay na sang control sa aton pang-gobyerno,” said Sayno.

It appears now that any public official may be removed via a quo warranto plea, said the lawyer.

“What will prevent people from … instituting quo warranto cases against impeachable officers?” he added.

Atty. Joenar Pueblo, pioneer member and president of the Philippine Arbitration Center in the Visayas at the University of San Agustin, insists that the chief justice may be removed only via impeachment.

“Whether she should be impeached or not, that is another thing, pero dapat she should have been removed via impeachment, not quo warranto,” the constitutional law professor at the university’s College of Law said.

Pueblo said he assumes the decision is pro hac vice, which means it is applicable only to Sereno’s case in particular and may not be invoked as a precedent for other cases.

Kon indi sia pro hac vice, that’s a very dangerous precedent kay bisan sin-o lang pwede mo na ma-file-an quo warranto (plea),” he said.

A law student told Panay News they were dismayed by the decision.

The Constitution is “clear” about the only means to unseat a chief justice, said the law student, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“The latest act of the Supreme Court as a body, for me, is clearly unconstitutional,” the law student said.

They added that they expect more impeachable officials to be a subject of “the same mode of extrajudicial removal process.”

“It seemed that the Constitution was no longer observed and it was political influence that prevailed,” said the law student.

The Supreme Court decision was based on the current “political atmosphere,” said a resident of Jaro district.

“It is apparent that the Constitution has been circumvented and the decision of the eight Supreme Court justices was based on the political atmosphere – to appease the President,” said the Jaro resident, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.

Sereno’s removal via a quo warranto plea “means that checks and balances, which the three branches of government are entitled to, are no longer in existence,” the local added.

The Supreme Court magistrates who voted in favor of the quo warranto plea against Sereno were associate justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Andres Reyes Jr., Lucas Bersamin, Samuel Martires, Alexander Gesmundo, Noel Tijam, and Francis Jardeleza.

Dissenting votes came from associate justices Antonio Carpio, Marvic Leonen, Presbitero Velasco Jr., Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perez-Bernabe, and Benjamin Alfredo Caguioa.

The majority of the Supreme Court justices believe Sereno’s appointment as chief justice has been void from the start for her failure to file statements of assets, liabilities and net worth./PN

1 COMMENT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here