Palace on Sereno’s ouster via quo warranto: The Supreme Court has spoken

May 11, 2018

The Supreme Court has spoken, Malacanang said on Friday.

Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque issued the statement after the Supreme Court, voting 8-6, granted the quo warranto petition of the Office of the Solicitor General declaring Maria Lourdes Serreno's appointment in 2012 as chief magistrate null and void.

"The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law. The High Court has spoken.  Let us respect its decision granting the quo warranto petition as the proper remedy and the quo warranto petition ruling against Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno," he said.

While critics have been questioning the legality of a quo warranto to oust the chief justice, Roque said the high court, a co-equal branch of government, was duty-bound to uphold the Constitution.

"The court ruling is likewise an assertion of the supremacy of the fundamental law of the land," he said.

In March, Solicitor General Jose Calida filed the quo warranto petition against Sereno, who earned the ire of President Rodrigo Duterte.

The filing of the petition was made while Duterte's allies in Congress were conducting an impeachment proceeding against Sereno.

In a separate statement, Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo said the Constitution has given the Supreme Court the duty to interpret the law.

"We must abide by it regardless of our disagreement with its ruling," he said, adding that it is how democracy works.

He explained that Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution uses the "permissive" words ""may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution" signifying the non-exclusiveness of the process of removing an impeachable official who was placed in office illegally. It does not say, "may only be removed from office on impeachment."

Thus, Panelo said impeachable officers can clearly be removed through modes other than the impeachment process.

"Both processes must be reconciled in relation to the constitutional requirement of submission of SALN (statement of assets, liabilities and net worth). The Supreme Court in issuing such ruling is only performing its constitutional duty of interpreting the provisions of the Constitution and rendering a decision on cases properly brought before it. The assumption of jurisdiction is a triumph of the rule of law," he said.

Citing the legal maxim "dura lex sed lex or the law may be harsh, but it is the law," Panelo said decisions cannot be based on emotions nor on biases.

The justices who voted that quo warranto was the proper remedy to remove Sereno said she violated the requirements on SALN when she was appointed as the chief justice in 2012. Celerina Monte/DMS