THE Supreme Court voted Friday 8-6 to oust Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, saying she was unqualified for the office because her failure to file the required number of statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs) was a clear indication of dishonesty and a lack of integrity.
In granting the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida against Sereno, the Court declared the position of chief justice vacant and directed the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to begin the application and nomination process.
Sereno, who became the first female chief justice in 2012, is now also the first top magistrate to be removed from office through a quo warranto petition, which deemed she was never qualified for the position from the beginning. Sereno, 57, would have served as chief justice until 2030 or another 12 years before her retirement if not for her ouster.
In a press briefing, Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te said Sereno was “adjudged guilty of unlawfully holding and exercising the office of the chief justice” and was therefore ousted.
The decision, written by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, is “immediately executory without the need of further action from the court.”
Aside from Tijam, the justices who also voted to oust Sereno were Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Francis H. Jardeleza, Andres B. Reyes, Jr., Alexander G. Gesmundo, and Samuel R. Martires.
Those who dissented were Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Mariano C. Del Castillo, and Marvic Mario Victor Leonen.
Sereno’s legal woes do not necessarily end with her removal from office, however, as the Supreme Court also ordered her to explain why she should not be sanctioned for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Judicial Conduct for “casting aspersions and ill motives” on her colleagues and for violating the sub judice rule, which restricts parties from making public statements on matters that are the subject of a judicial proceeding.
In speeches ahead of Friday’s vote, Sereno denounced the quo warranto proceedings as unconstitutional.
Violations of the code could be used in disbarment proceedings against Sereno.
Friday’s quo warranto decision renders the impeachment proceedings against Sereno in Congress moot and academic.
On the issue of whether or not quo warranto is the proper remedy to challenge Sereno’s appointment as chief justice, the justices voted 9-5 in favor of quo warranto as proper remedy, namely Velasco, De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Jardeleza, Martires, Tijam, Reyes Jr., and Gesmundo.
Justices Carpio, Del Castillo, Perlas Bernabe, Leonen, and Caguioa dissented, advocating that the proper remedy to challenge Sereno’s appointment was impeachment.
On the issue of whether or not Sereno violated the Constitution for her failure to file her SALNs, nine justices – Carpio, De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Jardeleza, Martirez, Tijam, Reyes Jr., and Gesmundo — voted that there was a violation. Of these, only Carpio said a quo warranto proceeding was not the proper remedy.
Calida’s quo warranto petition sought Sereno’s disqualification and removal for her failure to comply with the requirements of the JBC of filing 10-year SALNs when she applied for top judiciary post in 2012.
In a speech before a throng of supporters outside the Supreme Court shortly after she was ousted by her peers, Sereno still claimed victory because she believed that six of the eight who voted against her should have inhibited themselves from the case because they were biased.
“Only eight justices should have voted because the six should have inhibited themselves,” Sereno said in Filipino as she emerged from the special en banc session that ousted her. “If you look at it tht way, we won. But those who should have inhibit themselves did not, so that’s what happened.”
Sereno had earlier sought the inhibition of De Castro, Peralto, Jardeleza, Bersamin and Martires for their alleged bias and animosity toward her.
“I was removed, but the six votes from justices who wanted me to stay in office only shows that I am right in my stand,” Sereno said.
“This was the first time in our history that a majority of the members of the Supreme Court booted a colleague of their own out of office,” she said, even as she lamented that the majority bloc effectively robbed the Senate of its constitutional right to hear and try an impeachable official.
Sereno insisted that a magistrate of the Supreme Court can only be removed through impeachment proceedings to preserve the independence of the members of the Court.
Sereno thanked her supporters for their unwavering support throughout her fight and vowed to continue her fight for rule of law and against what she called “barkadahan” in the judiciary.
“Today is not the end but the beginning,” she continued in Filipino. “On this day we muster our courage and let our united voices be heard. We cannot remain silent because to be silent is to be complicit in their abuses.”
“They robbed the Senate of the right. They outright violated their sworn duty to protect the Constitution and destroyed the judiciary,” she added.
Former solicitor general Florin Hilbay expressed concern that Sereno’s removal would affect close Court decisions in which she voted, because the theory behind the quo warranto case was that she was never qualified to be chief justice.
“This will be tested. There will be one party, whose case was decided by a very close majority, say 8-7, [that can argue that].. it should be 7-7 because we removed Sereno from the computation,” he added.
Sereno arrived to her office at the Supreme Court shortly before 7:30 a.m., more than two hours before the scheduled en banc vote on the quo warranto petition.
Lawyer Jojo Lacanilao, one her spokesmen, confirmed her early arrival.
Meanwhile, groups calling for Sereno’s resignation also arrived at the SC main office on Friday morning, bearing placards and streamers saying “Sereno resign.”
On Thursday night, Sereno’s supporters held a prayer vigil in front of the SC building along Pardre Faura Street in Manila, praying that the justices would junk the quo warranto petition to give way to the impeachment proceedings in Congress, which they said is the only constitutional way to decide on the fate of the chief justice.
President Rodrigo Duterte and Sereno first clashed in 2016 when she criticized his order urging judges whom he linked to the illegal drugs trade to turn themselves in as part of his crackdown.
Police say they have killed around 4,200 drug suspects in Duterte’s nearly two-year-long campaign but rights groups allege the actual number is three times higher.
Duterte’s spokesman released a statement saying, “the High Court has spoken. Let us respect its decision.”
Sereno had resisted the ouster effort, saying in March: “The current state of the nation is one where perceived enemies of the dominant order are considered fair game for harassment, intimidation and persecution.”
Other Duterte critics have also been ousted, punished or threatened including Senator Leila de Lima, who has been detained on drug charges.
Duterte last month urged lawmakers to speed Sereno’s removal by impeachment, warning otherwise “I’ll do it for you.”
Sereno is the second chief justice in a row to be ousted in the Philippines. Lawmakers convicted her predecessor, Renato Corona, in 2012 of corruption allegations.
Then-President Benigno Aquino III, who campaigned for Corona’s ouster, said the sacking was part of his anti-graft reforms, but critics said he aimed to ensure his control of the court.
Sereno’s camp may still file a motion for reconsideration within 15 days as provided under Rules of Court, especially since she would need only a concurring vote to switch side to have the decision reversed. But the Court pronounced that it would no longer act further on the case.
In their decision, the justices said Sereno’s ineligibility could not be cured by her nomination and eventual appointment as chief justice by the previous administration.
They also rejected Sereno’s assertion that questions on her SALNs have no relation to her integrity as a qualification for the chief justice post.
“In so arguing, respondent loses sight of the fact that the SALN requirement is imposed no less than by the Constitution and made more emphatic by its accompanying laws and its implementing rules and regulations. In other words, one who fails to file his or her SALN violates the Constitution and the laws; and one who violates the Constitution and the laws cannot rightfully claim to be a person of integrity as such equation is theoretically and practically antithetical,” the decision said.
The tribunal also ruled that the SC has the power to remove Sereno through quo warranto despite her being an impeachable officer and that the case could be resolved independently from the impeachment case before the Congress. With Vito Barcelo, AFP
“Aside from the difference in their origin and nature, quo warranto and impeachment may proceed independently of each other as these remedies are distinct as to jurisdiction, grounds, applicable rules pertaining to initiation, filing and dismissal, and limitations,” the Court said.
Seven magistrates concurred with this ruling —De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Jardeleza, Martires, Reyes, and Gesmundo.
Carpio, Velasco, Del Castillo, Bernabe, Leonen and Caguioa dissented from the ruling.
Apart from granting the petition, the justices also held a separate voting of 9-5 on the issue of whether or not quo warranto is the proper remedy applicable to Sereno’s case considering she is an impeachable official.
Velasco voted with the majority on this issue. In his dissenting opinion, he believed that while Sereno could be covered by quo warranto despite being an impeachable official, ruling on Calida’s petition was premature as it should need trial in court.
Nine of the justices also voted that Sereno violated the Constitution for failure to file complete SALNs while she was still teaching law in the University of the Philippines.
For this, it was Carpio who joined the majority. In his dissenting opinion, the senior magistrate said the SC should dismiss the quo warranto petition but stressed that she committed culpable violation of the Constitution and should be impeached in Congress instead.
With Sereno’s ouster, Carpio will again serve as acting chief justice just as he did in 2012 after the ouster of the late chief justice Renato Corona in an impeachment trial before the Senate.
In a statement, presidential spokesperson Harry Roque said the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law and urged people to respect its decision.
Duterte’s chief legal counsel, Salvador Panelo said the Constitution vests the duty of interpreting the law to the Supreme Court.
“[W]e must abide by it regardless of our disagreement with its ruling. That is how democracy works. Each branch of the government performs its duty as defined by the Constitution. And the judicial branch has performed its task as directed by the Constitution,” Panelo said in a statement.
In a statement released Friday, Sereno maintained that the Senate impeachment tribunal, not the Supreme Court, should rule on her ouster, even as she denounced the “clique of magistrates” behind the decision removing her from her post.
Sereno said that for the first time in history, the highest court of the land removed one of its members, taking itself the job of the Senate and violating the Constitution it swore to uphold.