Quo Warranto Q & A

Sharing Vivian Sarabia’s post for us to ponder..

This is a Q & A primer intended for laymen, as to why the Supreme Court was wrong in the decision to oust Chief Justice Sereno.

Q1: In a nutshell why can’t the Supreme Court order the dismissal of a fellow justice?

Answer: Art. XI Sec. 2 of the Constitution states that the President, Vice-President, Justices of the Supreme Court, Commissioners of the three Constitutional Commissions [Civil Service Commission, Commission on Elections, Commission on Audit], and the Ombudsman may be removed only by impeachment.

Q2: What is impeachment?

Answer: Impeachment is the process whereby those mentioned impeachable officials can be removed by impeachment complaint initiated by Congress, which are filed with, and tried by the Senate.

Q3: Does the word “may” in Art. XI Sec 2 of the Constitution mean that there are other ways to remove impeachable officers?

Answer: No. The word “may” in Art. XI Sec. 2 refers to the act of removal, i.e., the decision on whether or not to remove them. But the second sentence of Sec. 2 clearly states that, “All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.” So the Constitution clearly states that removal by other means as provided by law, does not apply to impeachable officers.

Q4: What is the logic of impeachment?

Answer: Impeachment is to ensure that public officers like the President, Supreme Court justices, who occupy critical positions in government can stay in their positions and exercise their functions freely and independently, free from the threats of being removed or harassment cases due to disagreements with their decisions. So the process for their removal is made more deliberate and difficult and requires serious grounds.

Q5: What is Quo Warranto?

Answer: Quo Warranto is a legal proceeding under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court where, among other grounds, a public officer is questioned for unlawfully holding a position in government. In other words, the qualifications of the public officer are being questioned.

Q6: To which officials does Quo Warranto apply?

Answer: It applies to all other public officers and employees, except the President, Vice-President, Justices of the Supreme Court, Commissioners of the three Constitutional Commissions [Commission on Human Rights, Commission on Elections, Commission on Audit], and the Ombudsman.

Q7: Can Quo Warranto prevail over the Constitution?

Answer: No. The Constitution is the Supreme Law, whereas Quo Warranto is not even a law; it is just a procedural rule.

Q8: What was the basis for the Supreme Court removing Chief Justice Sereno?

Answer: CJ Sereno was removed by a petition for Quo Warranto for failing or neglecting to file her SALN for several years, and for being disagreeable, abuse of power, oppressive, and incompetent for violating certain internal rules

Q9: Are those grounds for impeachment?

Answer: No. The only grounds for impeachment are culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

Q10: What about the case of former CJ Corona who was impeached for his SALN?

Answer: The Corona case was different. He was impeached for falsifying his SALN and graft and corruption, which is an impeachable offense.

Q11. But they said Cj Sereno lied in her application before the Judicial and Bar Council? Answer: In such case, the JBC should have conducted due diligence and dealt with the matter at that point by not clearing her as a candidate for CJ. But once she was appointed, CJ Sereno could no longer be recalled. The only way to remove her is through impeachment.

Q12: If the Constitution is clear why did the Supreme Court rule in such manner?

Answer: There are many reasons for a court to render a wrong decision: Mistake, corruption, undue influence, personal bias and animosity. In this case it appears that the decision was a result of personal bias and undue influence.

Q13: But doesn’t the Supreme Court have 151 pages of reasoning to back its Decision?

Answer: Noted Constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas once wrote that long decisions make for bad case law because the court is covering up for something that could have been said clearly, simply, and straight to the point.

Q14: Was it proper for some justices to openly attack CJ Sereno and still rule on her case? Answer: No. Judicial ethics states that judges and justices must be fair and even handed in deciding cases. If there is any doubt as to their impartiality, fairness, or integrity, in handling the case, they should inhibit or refuse to handle the case. This is true especially if one of the parties to the case, asks them to inhibit or refuse to handle the case. (Note: The accuser cannot also be the judge. Justices Bersamin, De Castro, Jardeleza, Martirez, Peralta, and Tijam have publicly hurled accusations against CJ Sereno. They should have recused themselves from the QW deliberations.)

Q15:Did Cj Sereno violate the Code of Judicial Conduct by speaking out during the pendency of her case?

Answer: No. Because she spoke out as a party respondent to the case and not as a member of the judiciary. Hence, she had every right to argue and comment on her case, publicly or otherwise.

Q16: In view of the Decision, what is the status of CJ Sereno now?

Answer: Ma Lourdes Sereno is still a justice of the Supreme Court, the decision merely ousted her as Chief Justice. However, the Decision ordered her to explain why she should not be disciplined further, which is a hint that the Supreme Court intends to administratively sanction or disbar her in a further Resolution on the matter.