“The decision is immediately executory without need of further action from the Court,” the decision said.
Sereno’s spokesperson lawyer Carlo Cruz said last Wednesday that they would file a motion for reconsideration once the court rules in favor of the petition.
Calida filed the quo warranto petition seeking the nullification of Sereno’s appointment as Chief Justice over her alleged failure to file her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) for several years from 1986 to 2006 when she was a professor at the UP College of Law.
It was found out that aside from her SALNs for the years 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2011, which she submitted in her applications for Associate Justice and Chief Justice, Sereno only filed SALNs for the years 1998, 2002, and 2006 during her tenure as law professor at the UP College of Law from 1986 up to 2006.
Sereno earlier insisted that the SC has no jurisdiction to hear and resolve the quo warranto petition since she can only be removed through impeachment proceedings conducted by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.
It was business as usual at the Hall of Justice here. No one wanted to say anything about the SC’s decision, and there was no sign of rejoicing or dissent inside or outside the Hall of Justice. No one wore “red,” a color associated with groups that sought Sereno’s resignation.
Court officials and employees were nearly poker-faced when news broke out that the SC voted to remove the Chief Justice.
Lawyer Eddie Cuaresma, president of the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, said the IBP would tackle the SC decision on the quo warranto petition when it meets on Wednesday.
Cuaresma said the unprecedented decision is good as “final and executory,” pointing out that it would be unlikely for the high court to reverse its own ruling even if it receives a motion for reconsideration.
“I believe that the Supreme Court would uphold its decision,” he said of what he called as a “landmark decision.”
Cuaresma added: “Kasagaran mga impeachable officials matangtang pina-agi sa impeachment court. Apan kini iya ni Sereno, lahi kay natangtang siya dili sa impeachment court apan sa quo warranto petition.”
The decision “killed” the prospects of an impeachment trial against Sereno, said lawyer and former vice mayor Antonio Soriano.
Like Cuaresma, Soriano said it would be unthinkable for the SC to change its decision.
“Usbon lugar sa mga mahistrado ang ilang decision? Malabo na,” said Soriano. “Life goes on.”
For Wildon Barros, secretary general of Kilusang Mayo Uno in northern Mindanao, the country’s regression back to the dark years of the Marcos era is complete with the ouster of the Chief Justice.
Barros said President Duterte succeeded in co-opting the other two equal branches of government.
“Wala na’y pulos ang Supreme Court. Koko (Senate President Aquilino Martin Pimentel III) man diay ang Judicial Bar Council. Wala na’y pulos ang legislative, judiciary, ug samot ang executive,” he said.
Barros said the only winner with SC’s historic decision was Duterte, and all Filipinos, “the losers.”
“Winner si Digong. Kontrolado na niya ang Supreme Court. Kontrolado na niya ang Congress. Kontrolado na ang Ombudsman ug CHR (Commission on Human Rights),” Barros said.
Barros said it was the same tactic that strongman Ferdinand Marcos did before. “Same tactics gamit ni Marcos niadto. Posible gayud nga daug na pud ani iyang election protest. Mag-uban na sila (Duterte and Ferdinand Marcos Jr.),” he said.