By now, everyone is probably aware that Solicitor General Jose Calida filed a petition for quo warranto in the Supreme Court against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. Calida posits that Sereno’s appointment as chief justice in 2012 is void from the start because Sereno failed to comply with a documentary requirement imposed by the Judicial and Bar Council on all applicants for the post of chief justice.
Calida’s petition marks the second time Chief Justice Sereno was sued in her own court. The first time was when she was sued for manipulating the rules of the JBC to prejudice the rights of an applicant for appointment as associate justice of the Supreme Court. In time, the Supreme Court reprimanded Sereno.
Personalities opposed to Calida’s petition, which include a number of politicians and opinion leaders who do not understand Constitutional Law, condemned the petition as a shortcut to the impending impeachment proceedings against Sereno. To them, the only proceedings that can be pursued against Sereno is impeachment, because a justice of the Supreme Court is removable from office only by impeachment.
They are obviously unaware that impeachment presupposes that the appointment of Sereno as chief justice is valid. If Sereno’s appointment is, as contended by Calida, void from the start, then quo warranto, not impeachment, is the proper recourse against Sereno.
Last week, these oppositors reiterated their lack of understanding of Constitutional Law when they attempted to intervene in Calida’s quo warranto petition in the Supreme Court.
More specifically, several anti-establishment party-list representatives in Congress, together with a group of alleged “concerned citizens” have asked the Supreme Court to allow them to intervene in the quo warranto case. The politicians are led by Bayan Muna Representative Carlos Zarate, while the so-called “concerned citizens” are headed by Robert Reyes, a Catholic priest who styles himself as “the running priest” because runs marathons in support of certain causes.
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines also wants to intervene in the case. Like the party-list representatives and the “concerned citizens” mentioned above, the IBP wants the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition for quo warranto against Sereno.
Their arguments against Calida’s petition remain the same — Sereno can only be removed from office by impeachment, and that quo warranto is an illegal shortcut in lieu of impeachment. They hinted that the petition was designed to intimidate justices who go against the wishes of the administration.
Father Reyes, “the running priest,” alleged that Sereno’s appointment is valid simply because President Benigno Aquino III had already appointed her chief justice. Good grief!
For her part, Chief Justice Sereno told the news media that she was very happy about the planned intervention.
At a women’s rights forum held last week at the University of the Philippines in Quezon City, Sereno said that the allegations against her were “imagined” by sectors “funded by a formidable machinery.” She did not say, however, if the justices of the Supreme Court who testified against her before the justice committee of the House of Representatives are part of that “formidable machinery.”
Sereno’s camp insists that she was not given her day in the justice committee. House leaders contend otherwise, saying that Sereno was repeatedly invited to the hearings, but she refused to attend in person, and sent her lawyers instead. Observers suspect that Sereno found it demeaning to appear personally before a congressional committee, she being the chief justice.
It will be recalled that although Sereno’s camp said that the chief justice went on leave from the Supreme Court for a two-week “wellness” recess, the news media later revealed that Sereno’s colleagues practically compelled her to go on an indefinite leave to prepare for her impeachment trial in the Senate, which is expected this coming August. Critics also say that her “wellness” recess turned out to be a series of almost daily speaking engagements all over the metropolis.
As of this writing, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether or not the oppositors can legally intervene in thequo warranto case. Intervention is not a matter of right. One who wishes to intervene in a court case must have valid reasons to do so.
From all indications, however, the intervention sought in the quo warranto case is not warranted.
First, Sereno has already filed her comment on the petition for quo warranto, and it contains the same arguments raised by the would-be intervenors. Simply stated, the intervention is unnecessary and will only waste the time of the court.
Second, the would-be intervenors have not shown any right or interest on their part which needs to be protected by their intervention. They did not appoint Sereno, and they do not stand to suffer any damage if Sereno’s appointment as chief justice is declared void ab initio by the Supreme Court.
As a justice of the Supreme Court, Sereno can very well take care of her own defense, without help from any intervenors—unless the intervenors are tacitly declaring that Sereno is incapable of defending herself in court.
“The running priest” who is part of the planned intervention is a church official. Has he forgotten the constitutionally mandated separation of Church and State? So far, the Church is exempted from paying taxes despite the large revenues it makes from church services like weddings, baptisms, and wakes. If the Church wants to interfere in the political affairs of the State, the Church should pay taxes first. The unjustly convicted who are languishing in prison need this priest’s intervention more than Sereno does.
A large number of the would-be intervenors are not even genuine Sereno supporters. They are rabid foes of President Rodrigo Duterte. Since they sense Duterte is behind the current woes of the chief justice, they have opted to make Sereno their strategic ally in the meantime. After all, the enemy of one’s enemy is, even for the moment, one’s friend.