The Supreme Court will resolve today the motion filed by ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno seeking a reversal of its May 11 decision that removed her from her post.
Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio said Sereno’s motion for reconsideration filed last week was included in today’s en banc agenda.
An insider said the high court could take either of two actions: approve Sereno’s motion or require Solicitor General Jose Calida, who filed the quo warranto petition, to submit his comment on the motion.
On May 11, the high court, voting 8-6, disqualified Sereno as chief justice for her failure to comply with the Judicial and Bar Council’s requirement to file her 10-year Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth when she applied for the post of chief justice.
The high court ruled that Sereno’s failure to submit her SALNs meant “her integrity was not established at the time of her application,” hence she was not eligible to hold her position.
The tribunal also required Sereno to explain why she should not be sanctioned for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct for transgressing the sub judice rule and for casting aspersions and ill motives on the members of the Supreme Court.
The seven other magistrates who concurred with the ruling ousting Sereno were Justices Teresita J. Leonardo de Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Francis H. Jardeleza, Samuel R. Martires, Andres B. Reyes Jr. and Alexander G. Gesmundo.
Those who voted to deny the quo warranto petition were Acting Chief Justice Carpio and Justices Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., Mariano C. del Castillo, Estela M. Perlas Bernabe, Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen, and Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguio.
On the issue of whether or not quo warranto is the proper remedy to challenge Sereno’s appointment as Chief Justice, the voting was 9-5. Justices Velasco, De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Jardeleza, Martires, Tijam, Reyes Jr. and Gesmundo voted that quo warranto is the proper remedy.
Justices Carpio, Del Castillo, Perlas Bernabe, Leonen and Caguio voted against. To them, impeachment is the proper remedy.
On the issue of whether or not Sereno violated the Constitution for her failure to file her SALNs, Carpio, De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Jardeleza, Martirez, Tijam, Reyes Jr. and Gesmundo voted that there was a violation.
While Sereno filed her motion to reconsider the decision, she sought more time to file her pleading on a show-cause order to explain her alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct for transgressing the sub judice rule and for casting aspersions on the high court members.
In her 205-page motion, Sereno said the “basic, 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”•the disqualification and ouster of the Chief Justice.”
Sereno even warned “the 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.”