Members of the House Makabayan bloc and people’s organizations on Tuesday filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) on the Supreme Court’s (SC) decision denying their petition to intervene on the quo warranto case against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.
Last April 3, the SC denied, for lack of merit, the group’s motion for leave to file motion to intervene in the quo warranto proceedings against the Chief Justice on-leave.
READ: SC asks Sereno to attend oral arguments on quo warranto case
The group maintained that it has “legal interest” on the issue as the Chief Justice “can only be removed from office through impeachment.”
READ: Groups, former Senator ask SC to junk ouster case vs Sereno
In a statement, the Makabayan bloc said the allegations in the quo warranto petition are clearly “the same as the contents of Article I, Sections A to D, of the Articles of Impeachment, which deals exclusively with the issue of the Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALNs) of Chief Justice Sereno.”
“Clearly, this present quo warranto petition is but a form of forum shopping intending to derail and hijack the ongoing impeachment process to the prejudice of all Intervenors,” the progressive solons added.
The quo warranto petition, they said, could overtake the impeachment process in Congress.
“Clearly, such a scenario is to the prejudice of the legal rights of Intervenors, who as Members of Congress, have the collective and exclusive constitutional right to initiate all cases of impeachment. As such, Intervenors have a clear legal interest in the matter in litigation,” they added.
The groups also pointed out that the attempt to shift the arena for Sereno’s ouster from the impeachment process towards the quo warranto process, “deprives the citizens and taxpayers of their participation, since the resolution of the ouster or removal of Sereno will now be under the hands of our Justices, albeit not elected public officials.”
The quo warranto petition seeking to disqualify Sereno as Chief Justice was filed by the Office of the Solicitor General last March 5. It alleged that she was unqualified for the position.
READ: Solgen Calida questions Sereno’s qualifications before SC
But Sereno’s camp brushed off this petition as baseless.
READ: CJ Sereno not worried of SC ‘political noise,’ says spox /muf
