IBP: Ouster plea vs. Sereno ‘fatally flawed’

The leadership the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on Friday asked the Supreme Court to allow them to formally seek the dismissal of Solicitor General Jose Calida's "fatally flawed" ouster plea against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

The IBP's Board of Governors is the third group that wants to intervene in the case, following militant lawmakers and a group of concerned citizens that have similarly sought leave to oppose the petition that challenges the validity of Sereno's appointment in 2012.

In seeking the petition for quo warranto's dismissal, the IBP provided seven arguments, including the lapsed prescriptive period for the plea's filing and the inevitability of encroaching into the separation of powers if the SC looks into Sereno's alleged lack of integrity.

"The Quo Warranto Petition is fatally flawed because the allegations therein are clear that the JBC itself did not require the submission of respondent Chief Justice SALNs from 2001 to 2006," the IBP's motion said.

"Therefore, there is no discernible intent of avoiding the constitutional requirement that would purportedly taint her integrity," it added.

Like the top magistrate herself and the other oppositors, the IBP insisted that impeachment is the only way allowed by the Constitution to remove an impeachable official from office.

"The rule on impeachment rests on the fundamental principles of judicial independence and separation of powers," the IBP said.

It also raised that the Judicial and Bar Council has the power to determine whether or not Sereno passed the test of "proven integrity."

Calida, in his petition, had said that Sereno had flunked this requirement when she failed to submit the necessary number of statements of assets and liabilities during her application for the post.

The chief justice has herself sought the junking of Calida's petition for lack of merit and jurisdiction. In her comment, she maintained that giving due course to the plea will supersede the 1987 Constitution and jurisprudence.

Defending its bid to be granted leave to intervene in the case, the IBP said it "has the fundamental duty...to uphold the Constitution, advocate for the rule of law and safeguard the administration of justice."

"Quo warranto does not lie because what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly," argued the IBP. —KG, GMA News