Atty. Justin Mendoza, one of the lawyers of former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, showed to the media a copy of her Motion for Reconsideration on the SC’s ruling on a quo warranto petition. /Photo by Tetch Torres-Tupas
Ousted chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its May 11 decision on a quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida that led to her ouster.
In the 205-page motion for reconsideration, Sereno’s camp said the high court’s decision is a “proverbial path to perdition.”
“The proverbial path to perdition which the majority of this Court has taken, that is paved mainly with the intention of removing the Chief Justice by any means, can lead only to the destruction of judicial independence and the separation of powers,” read the motion.
“That is a consequence, unintended as it may be, that the respondent earnestly asks this Court to veer away from,” the motion further stated.
The same motion also reiterated its call for the recusal of Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam, Lucas Bersamin and Samuel Martires.
“This is essentially a plea to the Honorable Court to do what is right and just…And the right and just thing to do, as dictated by the Respondent’s fundamental right to due process is to disqualify the six Honorable Justices who had lost the impartiality to hear and decide this case,” the motion added.
Voting 8-6, the SC granted the quo warranto petition to remove Sereno from office on the basis of a supposedly invalid appointment in 2012.
In its decision, the SC majority ruled that Sereno’s failure to submit her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) as law professor at the University of the Philippines would mean “her integrity was not established at the time of her application,” making her ineligible to hold her position.
However, Sereno contended that the majority violated her constitutional right to due process when it ignored evidence that she had filed her UP SALNs.
Worse, she said the decision made baseless conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence such as her alleged tax fraud when there was no evidence to support it.
“The matters that were never raised by either party are actually mere allegations or charges raised in the impeachment complaint before the House of Representatives, all of which have yet to be proven. Since the allegations stated therein are nothing more than mere charges, they cannot be taken as evidence against the Chief Justice,” she stressed. /vvp