SENATORS from the majority and majority blocs on Monday expressed apprehension over the move of Solicitor General Jose Calida to kick out Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno through a quo warranto proceeding to void her appointment.
Senate President Aquilino Pimentel 3rd said Calida’s action – premised on Sereno’s non-submission of all of her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) when she applied to become chief justice – could be a violation of the 1987 Constitution because she and other impeachable officials could only be removed through impeachment.
“If you invent some other proceeding which would result in removal from office then that should violate that provision in the Constitution,” Pimentel said.
The Senate president however made it clear that Calida’s filing of a quo warranto petition questioning Sereno’s qualifications was a legitimate move, but whether the case would succeed or not would depend on the Supreme Court.
“My first impression is it is unlikely (to succeed) so I need to read the petition and find out what is their approach,” he added.
Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon said extra care must be exercised by the Supreme Court in treating the petition because it could set a precedent wherein impeachable officials, even justices, could be subjected to a quo warranto petition.
“The moment the Supreme Court entertains and rules on this – that it has the power to, in effect, dismiss the chief justice – that same rule applies to them,” Drilon noted.
Such ruling would cover heads of constitutional bodies including the Commission on Audit, Commission on Elections, the vice president and even the President, he said.
“This is a slippery slope that can set a precedent. Extra care must be exercised by the Supreme Court. But as I’ve said, the ball is in their court and it is up to them to decide,” the minority leader said.
Pimentel shared the view and said a quo warranto action would also weaken the Senate because it would provide another way to remove impeachable officials.
He said the Senate was ready and willing to conduct fair impeachment proceedings against Sereno.
‘Novel theory’
Sen. Francis Escudero viewed Calida’s move as a “novel theory” that should not be disregarded right away.
Although the theory is on shaky grounds, some novel theories have become “part of the law of the land” by virtue of a ruling by the Supreme Court.
“A lawyer, sometimes, like a scientist, comes up with off-the cuff theories that in the beginning may appear wrong or even stupid, but later on become mainstream belief once it gets wide acceptance,” he noted.
Opposition Sen. Antonio Trillanes 4th meanwhile said Supreme Court justices who would vote to kick out Sereno would expose themselves to impeachment.
Calida’s move, according to the opposition senator, shows that those who want Sereno ousted are resorting to shortcuts instead of following the impeachment process.
“They know that they cannot control what will happen in the impeachment case once it is transmitted to the Senate. People will be able to see the evidence and witnesses and find out if they are telling the truth,” Trillanes said.
Parallel moves
Also on Monday, Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, whose justice committee is hearing the impeachment complaint against Sereno, said impeachment and quo warranto proceedings could proceed simultaneously.
But an annulment of her appointment will moot the impeachment proceedings, he said.
“To my mind, they can proceed simultaneously because there is also a presumption that such appointment is valid unless annulled,” Umali told reporters.
He was responding to the question of whether or not it would be better for the House of Representatives to wait for the Supreme Court’s ruling on the quo warranto petition filed on Monday by Calida.
Umali does not see the quo warranto process emasculating the impeachment process.
“These are separate and independent actions based on different grounds,” he said.
Voting on Thursday
The impeachment complaint against Sereno was filed by lawyer Lorenzo Gadon.
Gadon accused the chief magistrate of culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, “other high crimes,” and betrayal of public trust for allegedly manipulating the Judicial and Bar Council that appoints judges; failing to truthfully disclose her earnings in her SALNs; and using public funds to finance a “lavish lifestyle” by supposedly ordering the purchase of a bullet-proof Toyota Land Cruiser, among others.
The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases. Citizens may file complaints, provided they get a lawmaker’s endorsement.
A vote of one-third of the House members is needed for the matter to proceed to the Senate, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases.
The House Committee on Justice will vote on whether or not probable cause exists on Thursday.
“Whatever will be the result of this voting on probable cause, that will go to the Articles of Impeachment together with the report that we will vote upon in the impeachment committee again next week,” he said.
“Assuming and in all likelihood we will...approve the report with the articles, we will submit it to the plenary, to the rules committee in particular, by the week of March 21 before we close.”
The House of Representatives will adjourn on March 24 and will resume sessions on May 14.
Last week, the Supreme Court en banc ordered Sereno to go on indefinite leave beginning March 1.
Umali said Sereno should resign to avoid the embarrassment of a trial.
“I think it is honorable for her to resign. That is the honorable thing to do...She’s the leader of the third branch of government which is the Judiciary. She is the leader of the Supreme Court. And leadership calls for her to do the right thing. And what is the right thing to do, the honorable thing to do? Resign…What would you have done?
Wait it out in the next 12 years when you know the people have no trust and confidence in you? With this kind of people that have no trust in you, no respect for you?”
with REINA C. TOLENTINO