OPPOSITION lawmakers slammed the Supreme Court (SC) decision on Friday, May 11, to remove Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno from office while Chief Presidential Counsel Salvador Panelo defended the ruling.
Panelo, in a statement issued shortly after the SC voted 8-6 to grant the quo warranto petition seeking to invalidate Sereno's appointment in 2012, described Sereno as "unqualified".
"As we have explained in our previous articulations, quo warranto and impeachment are two different legal modes of removing public officers. The latter removes qualified impeachable officers while the former ousts unqualified public officials," he said.
"A person who has no legal right to hold office will remain in office unchallenged if he or she cannot be subjected to a quo warranto just because he or she happens to be an impeachable officer. What process of removal should we apply then?" Panelo added.
The removal of Sereno from office caught some judges and lawyers by surprise.
“The oust of an impeachable high ranking officer through Quo Warranto is surprisingly new to me,” said Mundlyn Misal-Martin, president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Cebu Chapter.
The high court's decision also did not sit well with several lawmakers, who argued that Sereno's removal from office circumvented the Congress' constitutional mandate to remove an impeachable official like Sereno.
Impeachment proceedings were conducted against Sereno by the House committee of justice. The committee report and articles of impeachment are just awaiting approval by the House plenary for endorsement to the Senate for trial. The House was supposed to act on these when it resumes session on May 15.
House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, however, said earlier that the House would terminate the impeachment proceedings once a favorable ruling on the quo warranto petition is issued.
Sereno, in a speech before the crowd outside the SC shortly after the decision was announced, insisted that the only way to remove her should have been through impeachment.
ACT Teachers Representative France Castro described the court's decision as "very detrimental to the judicial system and the Constitution." "The case filed against CJ Sereno is wrong and unconstitutional. As Chief Justice, which is an impeachable public official, she can only be removed from her office by means of impeachment which the Congress has jurisdiction," she said.
With the decision, she said President Duterte would now be able to choose a Chief Justice who would favor his policies and proclamations.
"Having a hold on the Judiciary, President Duterte would be able to implement more anti-people policies and proclamations, like his proposed Charter Change and nationwide martial law, without contest by the Supreme Court," she added.
ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio also condemned the SC decision.
"This Supreme Court will be remembered with the same ignominy as the Court that bowed to Marcos as he imposed martial law in 1972. The message to other high officials is clear - bend the knee to Duterte or face ouster by hook or by crook," Tinio said.
Kabataan Representative Sarah Elago, in a separate statement, said the court ruling would pave the way for a "strong, one-man rule." She said the SC did "not only successfully eroded the Constitutionally enshrined principles of checks-and-balances and separation of powers, but also gave ultimate control of the judiciary to a madman."
“Similar to the role the Supreme Court played in ushering in the Marcos dictatorship, the Supreme Court has, once again, proven how it serves to protect the interest of whoever is in power,” Kabataan Partylist Representative Sarah Elago said.
Akbayan Rep. Tom Villarin vowed that his group will continue to fight for the rule of law and against the rule of a strongman.
"This comes with a chilling effect not only for the political opposition but also for members of judiciary, who now sit with no security given this dangerous precedent," he said.
Magdalo Partylist Rep. Gary Alejano, for his part, warned against pushing "the people to the wall."
"The fight is beyond the Chief Justice. This is a fight for democracy, and all of us have the responsibility to respond to the call. The Duterte administration should be reminded that when you push the people to the wall, they will fight back. This is etched in history, and as they say, history repeats itself," he said.
Panelo, meanwhile, insisted that Sereno can be ousted through other "modes," as Section 2, Article 11 of the 1987 Constitution merely used "permissive words," with regard to removal of an impeachable officer.
"Section 2, Article 11 of the Constitution uses the permissive words 'may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution,' signifying the non-exclusiveness of the process of removing an impeachable official who was placed in office illegally," Panelo said.
"It does not say, 'may ONLY be removed from office on impeachment,' and thus impeachable officers can clearly be removed through modes other than the impeachment process," he added.
Panelo said that now that the high court "has spoken," the public should just "bow to the majesty of the law." He added that Filipinos must "abide" by the high court's constitutional duty of interpreting the law, "regardless of disagreement with its ruling."
"The Supreme Court in, issuing such ruling, is only performing its constitutional duty of interpreting the provisions of the Constitution and rendering a decision on cases properly brought before it," he said.
"The assumption of jurisdiction is a triumph of the rule of law. Dura lex sed lex or 'the law may be harsh, but it is the law.' Decisions cannot be based on emotions nor on biases," he added. (Ruth Abbey Gita/SunStar Philippines)