Supreme Court affirms Sereno’s ouster with finality

June 19, 2018

The Supreme Court closed the door on the appeal of its ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno to reverse its decision as it ruled on her dismissal with finality. In an en banc decision on Tuesday, the High Tribunal, voting 8-6, said "it denied with finality respondents' motion for reconsideration of the Court's May 11 2018 decision." The 15-member bench ordered the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to now start the search for the next chief justice. Under the Constitution, the president must appoint Sereno's replacement within 90 days from Tuesday. The eight magistrates who voted to sustain its May 11 decision include Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo - de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam, Samuel Martires, Andres Reyes Jr. and Alexander Gesmundo. Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Mariano Del Castillo, Estela Bernabe, Marvic Leonen and Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa voted to grant the MR of Sereno and for reversal of the decision. The majority bloc said Sereno failed to raise new arguments in her 205-page MR filed last May 30. The SC affirmed its finding that Sereno's appointment in 2012 was invalid because she was not qualified for lack of proven integrity due to her failure to file all her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth when she was still teaching law in the University of the Philippines. "In sum, respondent has not presented any convincing ground that would merit a modification or reversal of our May 11, 2018 Decision. At the risk of being repetitive, respondent, at the time of her application, lacked proof of integrity on account of her failure to file a substantial number of SALNs and also, her failure to submit the required SALNs to the JBC during her application to the position," read the 25-page resolution penned by Tijam. The SC disagreed with the argument of Sereno in her appeal that failure to file of SALN cannot be considered as gauge of her integrity. "Respondent’s argument dangerously disregards that the filing of SALN is not only a requirement under the law, but a positive duty required from every public officer or employee, first and foremost by the Constitution. The SALN laws were passed in aid of the enforcement of the Constitutional duty to submit a declaration under oath of one’s assets, liabilities and net worth," the ruling stressed. "This positive Constitutional duty of filing one’s SALN is so sensitive and important that it even shares the same category as the Constitutional duty imposed upon public officers and employees to owe allegiance to the State and Constitution. As such, offenses against the SALN laws are not ordinary offenses but violations of a duty which every public officer and employee owes to the State and the Constitution. In other words, violation of SALN laws, by itself, defeats any claim of integrity as it is inherently immoral to violate the will of the legislature and the to violate the Constitution,” the high court said. The SC also reiterated its ruling that Sereno may be removed via quo warranto proceedings since it is "separate and distinct from impeachment." The SC also initiated an administrative case against her for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Judicial Conduct "for transgressing the sub judice rule and for casting aspersions and ill motives to the members of the Supreme Court."   DMS