8 SC justices get rid of Sereno for good

By JOEY NACALABAN
Correspondent .

THE Supreme Court, still voting 8-6, yesterday ruled with finality on the ouster of Ma. Lourdes Sereno as chief justice, upholding its May 11 decision in favor of the quo warranto petition of Solicitor General Jose Calida.

As Sereno launched her no-holds-barred tirades against the Duterte administration right after the decision was announced, some lawyers and activists here frowned over the SC decision but said there was nothing that can be done about it.

“As you can see, whatever mistake the SC commits, it becomes a supreme mistake!” exclaimed lawyer James Judith.

Lawyer Eddie Cuaresma, president of the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), said the implication is that impeachable officials can now be removed via quo warranto petitions if they lacked qualifications “unless if in the future, the SC reverses itself.”

The decision, according to Judith, did not come as a surprise to him. He said there was nothing that can be done about what many see as an “institutional mistake.”

“The thing is that it is now final and the gods of Padre Faura have now spoken and so, let it be,” Judith said.

SC spokesman Theodore Te announced the decision yesterday afternoon right after the SC’s en banc session.

The SC, still voting 8-6 like in May 11, denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by Sereno, now the first chief justice and impeachable official to be removed from office through quo warranto proceedings.

The Bagong Alyansang Makabayan in northern Mindanao said the SC decision against Sereno merely “affirmed the dictatorial nature of the Duterte administration.”

Wildon Barros, Bayan secretary general in Region 10, said Duterte successfully coopted all the other equal branches of the executive — the legislative and judiciary.

“What Digong wants, Digong gets,” said Barros, adding that the ruling was an open display of the “allegiance” of some associate justices to Duterte, and that they “turned their backs” on their mandate to dispense justice.

“Kumpleto na ang diktaturya ni Digong. Busa panawagan nato sa katawhang Pilipinhon nga maghiusa kita para sa atong kagawasan,” said Barros.

Lawyer Ernesto Neri who teaches law at Xavier University, said he personally disagrees with the ruling but “I respect the decision of the Supreme Court.”

Neri said he was worried because the SC ruling set a “dangerous precedent” and “to my mind, undermines our whole constitutional order, particularly the concept of checks and balances.”

He added: “But I also submit that the legal battle is over — for now.”

Neri said the Sereno case might be revisited and corrected in the future “when the political winds change.”

Lawyer Adonis Gumahad opined: “It may be a precedent, bad or good, for impeachable officers but as a lawyer, I have to abide by the will of the SC as a whole.”

Those who voted to grant the quo warranto petition against Sereno were Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Samuel Martires, Andres Reyes Jr., Alexander Gesmundo, and Noel Tijam who penned the Court’s decision.

Those who dissented were Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco, Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic Leonen and Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa.

In its decision, the SC majority ruled that Sereno’s failure to submit her statements of assets and liabilities and net worth when she was a law professor at the University of the Philippines meant “her integrity was not established at the time of her application,” making her ineligible to hold her position.

With the ruling, the Judicial Bar and Council can now begin the nomination process for a new Chief Justice.

From the time of vacancy, Duterte has 90 days to appoint the next Chief Justice. (with reports from cong b. corrales and pna)