Carpio: Sereno failed to file SALNs but SC rewrote constitution with her ouster

Maria Lourdes Sereno violated the Constitution and betrayed the public trust when she repeatedly failed to file her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth but Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said the Supreme Court was wrong to remove the erstwhile Chief Justice by upholding a quo warranto plea.

In his 25-page dissent, Carpio indicated that the high tribunal rewrote the 1987 Constitution when it granted the quo warranto case Solicitor General Jose Calida filed to seek Sereno's removal from the helm of the Supreme Court.

"If a court finds that an impeachable officer has committed an impeachable act, the court should refer the matter to Congress, for Congress to exercise its exclusive mandate to remove from office impeachable officers," Carpio said.

"No court, not even this Court, can assume the exclusive mandate of Congress to remove impeachable officers from office," he added.

The Supreme Court, through a majority vote of 8-6, in a special en banc session on Friday granted the quo warranto petition seeking Sereno's ouster.

Carpio said ruling in favor Calida's ouster petition was a violation of the Constitution, which only allowed impeachment as the only to remove an impeachable official.

"The House impeaches, and the Senate convicts. This is the only method allowed under the Constitution to remove a member of this Court," Carpio said.

"To allow any other method is to rewrite the Constitution. To permit this quo warranto petition to remove an incumbent member of this Court is to violate the Constitution," he added.

Carpio said regardless if the alleged violation was committed before or after an appointment, only Congress had the authority to try and decide whether to unseat an impeachable official.

"Any misrepesentation on material matters at the time of application for office is an integrity issue subsumed under 'betrayal of public trust,'" which Carpio said was the "relevant applicable violation" in Sereno's case and which only Congress - through the Senate as an impeachment court - can decide on.

Carpio said it was "erroneous" for the majority ruling to interpet Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution to mean quo warranto action by the SC against void or defective appointments is not particularly being prohibited.

"The provision mandating removal only by impeachment is the 'Constitution's strongest guarantee of security of tenure. This guarantee blocks the use of other legal ways of ousting an officer,'" the magistrate said, quoting a 2003 commentary by constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas.

Carpio also cited "In re First Indorsement from Hon. Gonzales" which disallows disbarment cases against sitting SC justices to prevent them from being vulnerable to all manners of charges that seek to undermine judicial independence.

According to Carpio, what the high court should have done was treat Calida's quo warranto petition as an administrative case, conduct the necessary investigation, then refer all its findings and recommendations to Congress.

Despite siding with Sereno in opposing the quo warranto plea, Carpio still said that she violated the Constitution when she failed to file her statement of assets, liabilities and net worth multiple times.

He was joined by eight other justices. The rest did not express their opinion on the issue.

On the issue of whether or not quo warranto is the proper remedy to oust Sereno, nine voted in the affirmative and the rest voted against.

SC spokesperson Theodore Te, in a media briefing, said the decision was immediately executory, even as the Judicial and Bar Council has already been directed to start the application process for Sereno's replacement. —NB, 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

• Caguioa on Sereno ouster: SC committed suicide without honor
• Leonen: Quo warranto a legal abomination