Sereno ouster by peers rather than Senate ‘an act of kindness’—SolGen

Solicitor General Jose Calida. INQUIRER PHOTO/LYN RILLON

As an “act of kindness,” Solicitor General Jose Calida has asked the Supreme Court to remove Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno from her position via a quo warranto proceeding instead of letting her go through an impeachment trial.

A quo warranto proceeding is initiated to remove an unqualified official from his or her position as stated under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court.

“I don’t expect you to appreciate this but believe me, this is an act of kindness to a fellow lawyer,” Calida said at a press conference.

“The Office of the Solicitor General will not allow you to undergo the indignity that the late Chief Justice Renato Corona suffered at the hands of politicians who unjustly convicted him. You do not deserve that,” Calida said added.

Sereno’s camp, however, said that under the 1987 Constitution, an impeachable official can only be removed from office by impeachment, the sole power to impeach an official belongs to the House of Representatives, and the sole court for impeachment trials is the Senate.

“Any attempt to remove the Chief Justice that does not fall under these parameters is patently unconstitutional,” Atty. Jojo Lacanilao, one of Sereno’s spokesperson said.

But Calida argued that the Sereno camp is “horribly wrong.”

“A lawyer who has a basic grasp of our Constitution and jurisprudence ought to know that Impeachment and Quo Warranto are two entirely different proceedings with entirely different grounds for filing,” he said.

Calida said under Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution, “impeachable officers may be removed from office on impeachment and conviction of culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust.”

But Calida said impeachment is used if the officer is eligible and enjoys the presumption that his or her assumption to office is valid.

“That is not our route in the Sereno case,” he added.

On the other hand, quo warranto, Calida said, is the proper remedy to question the validity of Sereno’s appointment.

Why proper? Calida said under Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to exercise original jurisdiction over a quo warranto case.

He added that Section 7 (3) of the same article requires that a member of the Judiciary “must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.”

“Unfortunately, for respondent Sereno, she flunked the test of integrity when she failed to file more or less 10 SALNs (Statement of assets, liabilities and networth),” Calida said.

But when asked about the one prescription to file a quo warranto proceeding, which under the rule should be counted from assumption in office, Calida argued that it should be counted upon the discovery that the official is not qualified to hold such a position. /je