Senators Leila De Lima (L) and Antonio Trillanes IV. FILE PHOTO
The Supreme Court (SC) should not allow itself “to become a party to a patent transgression of the Constitution,” Senators Leila De Lima and Antonio Trillanes IV said Wednesday.
“Any proceeding whose aim is to remove an impeachable public officer outside an impeachment trial in the Senate is a palpable violation of the Constitution; it is a diminution of the Impeachment Clause, a circumvention of the exclusive character of an impeachment, and incompatible with the design of the Constitution,” the two Senators said in their motion to intervene in the quo warranto case against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.
“With due respect, the Honorable Court should not allow itself to become a party to a patent transgression of the Constitution,” they added.
The two urged the high court to dismiss the quo warranto petition against Sereno for lack of jurisdiction.
Solicitor General Jose Calida filed the quo warranto case to oust Sereno sans impeachment trial. He said Sereno’s appointment cannot be considered as valid because of her non-compliance of the statement of assets, liabilities and networth (SALN) requirements set by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).
But in their 11-page motion, the senators, through their counsel, former solicitor general Florin Hilbay argued that under the Constitution, there are only three qualifications for appointment to the Supreme Court: (1) natural born citizenship, (2) age and (3) experience, that is at least 15 years of practice of law.
The senators said the SALN requirement are only additional requirements set by the JBC and can be waived, adjusted or be removed entirely.
“An applicant recommended by the JBC, who satisfies all the constitutional qualifications is a qualified candidate, regardless of the JBC’s action on non-mandatory requirements,” read the motion.
Having completed the constitutional requirements to the Supreme Court, petitioners said Sereno’s appointment is valid.
Being a chief justice, they said Sereno can only be removed by impeachment.
“We must respect the language of the Constitution when it identifies a particular class and then restricts the ways by which its members can be removed from office. The exclusive nature of the class and the specificity of the mode of removal of the members of that class from office means two things that the class cannot be expanded, and that no additional grounds for removal may be considered,” the motion stated.
They added that under the Constitution, the Senate alone has the power to try and decide impeachment cases and acting on the quo warranto case would deprive them of their constitutional mandate. /je