Justice Leonen: Quo warranto a legal abomination

Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, one of the six magistrates who voted against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno's ouster, has called the quo warranto action against the unseated top magistrate a "legal abomination."

"This petition should have been dismissed outright and not given due course. It does not deserve space in judicial deliberation within our constitutional democratic space," he said in a tweet, likely quoting his dissenting opinion.

I dissent. This Petition should have been dismissed outright and not given due course. It does not deserve (cont) https://t.co/b5rstLLRb3

— Marvic Leonen (@marvicleonen) May 11, 2018

"Even if the Chief Justice has failed our expectation, quo warranto, as a process to oust an impeachable officer and a sitting member of the Supreme Court (SC), is a legal abomination."

He warned of the precedent the landmark decision set — a "grave" diminishing of judicial independence and a "threat" to the SC's ability to assert Filipinos' fundamental rights.

"We render this Court subservient to an aggressive Solicitor General. We render those who prevent dissenting opinions unnecessarily vulnerable to powerful interests," he said.

Solicitor General Jose Calida, appointed by President Rodrigo Duterte, scored another legal victory on Friday after his petition for quo warranto against Sereno was granted by the SC in an 8-6 vote.

His pleading sought the invalidation of Sereno's appointment as chief justice over her alleged failure to meet the integrity requirement for members of the judiciary for not completely filing her declarations of assets.

Leonen was among the minority, by a narrow margin, of justices who voted against Calida's petition. The others were Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco, Jr., Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas Bernabe, and Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa.

"Granting this Petition installs doctrine that further empowers the privileged, the powerful, and the status quo," Leonen said.

He said the granting of jurisdiction to the SC over quo warranto actions should be read in the context of the provisions of Article XI, Sections 2 and 3 of the 1987 Constitution — the parts of the Charter that provide for impeachment as a mode of removing members of the judiciary — and the "principles of judicial independence and integrity inherent in a constitutional order," also "implied" in several sections of the fundamental law of the land.

Leonen has been dissenting against Calida's petition since soon after it was filed --- he voted for its outright dismissal on the day the SC decided to order Sereno to comment on the pleading. —KBK, GMA News

RELATED LINKS:

Main decision

• SC: Sereno failed to file SALNs, unfit to be Chief Justice
• 6 justices weren't biased against Sereno —SC ouster decision

Concurring opinion

• De Castro: Sereno appointment is void due to lies, deception
• Martires denies ‘faith shaming’ Sereno: I’d be crazier than her if I did that

Dissenting opinions

• Carpio: SC rewrote constitution with Sereno ouster
• Caguioa on Sereno ouster: SC committed suicide without honor