黑料社

Maria Lourdes Sereno voiced hopes that all wasn鈥檛 lost in the motion for reconsideration she filed on Wednesday, urging her colleagues on the Supreme Court to invalidate their decision booting her out as Chief Justice.

In an unprecedented ruling on May 11, the high court voted 8-6 in finding Sereno 鈥済uilty of unlawfully holding and exercising the Office of the Chief Justice.鈥�

Sereno, who drew President Rodrigo Duterte鈥檚 ire for defending judges on his 鈥渘arcolist,鈥� said the decision was replete with 鈥渓egal and factual errors.鈥�

The ruling, which granted the quo warranto petition brought against her by Solicitor General Jose Calida, 鈥渋llustrates vividly the dire and far-reaching consequences of a denial of due process,鈥� she said in her motion.

A quo warranto is a challenge to an official鈥檚 qualifications for the post.

Do what鈥檚 right

鈥淭his is essentially a plea to the honorable court to do what is right and just,鈥� Sereno said in the motion her lawyers filed.

鈥淏asic, fundamental and longstanding constitutional and legal rules and principles, and settled judicial precedents were ignored, set aside and reversed by the majority decision to achieve one end鈥攖he disqualification and ouster of the Chief Justice,鈥� she said.

Calida, the government鈥檚 primary lawyer, initiated the quo warranto proceedings for Sereno鈥檚 failure to submit all her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) when she applied for the top judicial post in 2012.

The JBC vets all candidates for jobs in the judiciary.

The majority ruling, penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam, said Sereno flouted the Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct when she did not submit all her SALNs.

It said Sereno should have been disqualified at the outset, adding that a 鈥渕ember of the judiciary who commits such violations cannot be deemed to be a person of integrity.鈥�

Not inherently immoral

Sereno said the majority ruling explicitly stated that her failure to submit all her SALNs should be considered 鈥渘ot 鈥榠nherently immoral.鈥欌��

鈥淎nd since this honorable court has essentially held that the nonfiling of a SALN is not 鈥榠nherently immoral,鈥� this purported offense should not have negated the Chief Justice鈥檚 鈥榠ntegrity,鈥欌�� she argued.

Moreover, she pointed out that the decision was rendered 鈥渘ull and void鈥� after Tijam and five other associate justices refused to recuse themselves from the deliberations on Calida鈥檚 petition despite their palpable bias against her and in violation of her right to due process.

The five associate justices are Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Samuel Martires and Francis Jardeleza. Except for Martires, the justices testified in the impeachment proceedings against her in the House of Representatives.

Said Sereno: 鈥淭his honorable court has required [the] inhibition of trial court judges for far lesser reasons. Established jurisprudence on the inhibition of judges should be equally applied in this case.鈥�

Only by impeachment

She said the disqualification of the six justices 鈥渋s mandatory, grounded on actual bias and not mere participation in the hearings held by the House committee on justice.鈥�

Sereno stressed that Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution mandates that 鈥渋mpeachable officials like the Chief Justice can be removed only by impeachment and not by any other means.鈥�

鈥淭he proverbial path to perdition, which the majority of this court has taken, that is paved mainly with the intention of removing the Chief Justice by any means, can lead only to the destruction of judicial independence and the separation of powers,鈥� she said.

鈥淭hat is a consequence, unintended as it may be, that the respondent earnestly asks this court to veer away from,鈥� she added. 鈥淭he independence of the judiciary turns on this court鈥檚 adherence to this rule.鈥�

According to Sereno, her colleagues鈥� decision is unconstitutional since they have no authority to unseat a member of the high tribunal outside of the impeachment process.

鈥淭extually, impeachment is the only method for removal of appointive constitutional officers permitted under the Constitution,鈥� she said.

Expedient procedure

Sereno said a difficult process deliberately chosen by the Constitution could not be substituted with an expedient procedure.

The majority decision said the quo warranto could proceed simultaneously with impeachment as the petition was a remedy for challenging an appointed official鈥檚 qualifications while impeachment was for acts made after appointment.

In the impeachment complaint, Sereno was accused of, among other charges, failing to declare her real wealth, buying a luxury car with government funds and making questionable decisions without consulting her fellow magistrates.