Chavez, Victoria Isabel D.

LS401
CJ Sereno Impeachment

I am, by all means, standing to dissent the impeachment complaint and quo warranto
proceeding against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. As someone who abides in the power of
the Constitution and the rule of law, observance of due process is necessary in the regulation of
justice and equity within the inquiry of the courts. The impeachment complaint against her is not
just an assassination of her credibility as a public officer but a deprivation of her right to be heard.
In light of the issue, her position does not justify what it purports to be; she is the Chief Justice yet
she is being deprived of “justice” per se.

Critics of CJ Sereno apparently shifted the impeachment case to quo warranto proceeding,
evidently, a resort in the frustration to oust her in the office. In the failure to establish an
impeachable offense before the House Committee on Justice, a call for resignation was given in
support of the quo warranto proceeding. This in hand shows that the initiative for such would
render her resignation moot and academic; that she will no longer encounter imminent
interrogation if she would just raise her white flag as a sign of surrender. In other terms, it is like
taking the necessary precautions in the avoidance of a compelling constitutional crisis.

Under Article XI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, the Chief Justice may be removed
from the office upon impeachment by the House of Representative as the sole prosecutor (Rules
of Procedure in Impeachment Proceeding, Rule 6) and conviction of the Senate, sitting as an
impeachment tribunal. Removing the Chief Justice through a quo warranto proceeding can
nowhere be found in the Constitution and in any jurisprudence – it has no legal basis at all as far
the rule of law is concerned.

In order to serve their politically-motivated whims, CJ Sereno’s detractors have taken extra
steps that is beyond the boundary of the Constitution. If the impeachment case is sluggishly taking
its procedural course, then they have to take extraconstitutional means to put an end to it once and
for all – drastic times really call for drastic measures. Several Justices convinced her to entertain
the resignation call, which is, in their shallow contention, the only remedy that would best save
her from the scrutiny of public disclosure if ever charges against her are proven true.
 In as much as the quo warranto proceeding is present, the Supreme Court has no
jurisdiction over the integrity issue of the Chief Justice. Under Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987
Constitution, only the President has the sole power to appoint members of the Supreme Court
including the Chief Justice. The presumption underlies that the President adjudicated the integrity
of the person as it met the requirement for such position [Article VIII, Section 7 (3)]. In this case,
the separation of powers must be observed; there is no way that the Supreme Court can question
and reversed the appointment of the Chief Justice in matters concerning someone’s integrity.

The question of noble character as a requirement of being a member in the Judiciary does
not fall squarely within the purview of Article VIII, Section 7 which is entirely political in nature.
As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court can only decide in the quo warranto proceeding if the
constitutional grounds such as citizenship, age, and years of practice in the legal profession are in
question. Nevertheless, it would tantamount to an unconstitutional practice if they will invalidate
her position to something which is beyond the framework of the constitution.

The quo warranto proceeding filed by Solicitor General is seemingly baseless. He deemed
that Sereno’s failure to file her SALN amounted to lack of integrity, where in fact, the Judicial and
Bar Council clarified that all applicants for Chief Justice are required to submit all previous SALNs
until 31 December 2011 for those working in the government – not just SALNs for the past ten
years. Considering the fact that many could not comply, the JBC cancelled the requirement for all
applicants since it is not a constitutional need but merely a requirement that the JBC can waive.

Among other things, as a country who respects the power of the Constitution as the supreme
law of the land, the rule of law should prevail over the whims and caprices of people who are
tainted with ill-motives and self-serving interest. That we must, in all fairness, leave the law as it
speaks for itself. The Judiciary as a branch of the government, bestowed with such authority to
implore fair and credible verdict, should remain independent in upholding justice and equity for
the common good. It must not be instigated with deception and unfair prejudiced to manipulate
those who are respecting the very essence and existence of due process.

As a student who gives so much respect to the rule of law, I am standing to support Chief
Justice Sereno in the battle to uphold due process of law (Article III, Section 1 of the 1987
Constitution). I admire her determination in being firm on her belief to stand on what is just and
constitutionally right. She has remained undaunted by not succumbing on the battle to something
which is lawfully and legally upright. Truth be told, the struggle to freedom and liberation is a
struggle that we always have to encounter, in such sense, only the law can set the ground to
stabilize it. Chief Justice Sereno’s unwavering determination is a proof that in all matters, ours is
a government of law and not of men.