7 justices must inhibit from Calida’s SC ouster plea vs Sereno — Lagman

Rep Edcel Lagman. EDWIN BACASMAS

The seven Supreme Court (SC) justices who “unconstitutionally attempted to oust” Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno should inhibit from the quo warranto petition lodged against her, House opposition leader and Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said on Monday.

“The seven associate justices who unconstitutionally attempted to oust Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno must recuse themselves or inhibit from the adjudication of the quo warranto petition which is expected to be filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida questioning the validity of Sereno’s appointment,” Lagman said in a statement.

However, he did not name the seven justices he was referring to.

Solicitor General Jose Calida earlier filed a quo warranto case before the SC to question the validity of Sereno’s impeachment, after it was bared during House hearings that the top magistrate failed to complete the submission of her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) for 10 years to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).

Under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, a quo warranto proceeding is “an action by the government against a person who unlawfully holds a public office or holds a position which he or she is not qualified.”

READ: Solgen Calida questions Sereno’s qualifications before SC

While the appointment of Sereno complied with the basic requirements of the Constitution, the submission of SALN was an additional requirement by the JBC, which approved her appointment.

Lagman criticized how Calida “purposely chose to file the petition before the SC, which has become a hostile forum against Sereno, even as the one-year period within which to file the action has prescribed five years ago pursuant to Section 11 of Rule 66 of the Rules of Court.”

Aside from the high court, the lawmaker, citing Section 7 of Rule 66, said the Solicitor General could file the petition in the Court of Appeals or even in a Regional Trial Court in the City of Manila.

“The appointment of Sereno complied with the basic requirements of the Constitution and no less than the Judicial and Bar Council endorsed her appointment to then President Benigno Aquino III,” he said.

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

“After their conspiracy to unseat Sereno failed, the seven justices succeeded in compelling Sereno to file an indefinite leave, which has no constitutional or legal anchorage,” he added.

Lagman also sees the quo warranto petition as an opportunity for some justices to “pursue their scheme in removing the chief magistrate without waiting for the constitutional process of a Senate impeachment trial.”

“The quo warranto petition inveigles the Supreme Court to violate the Constitution by usurping the power of the House of Representatives to impeach the Chief Justice and the jurisdiction of the Senate to try and judge her,” he added.

Aside from the quo warranto case, Sereno is also facing an impending impeachment trial. The House justice committee is set to vote on the probable cause of the impeachment case against her on Thursday, before they approve and transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate. /je