Calida questions validity of CJ Sereno’s appointment before SC

Solicitor General Jose Calida on Monday challenged before the Supreme Court the legitimacy of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno's appointment in 2012.

Calida filed a petition for quo warranto before the Supreme Court, challenging Sereno's appointment over her alleged incomplete submission of Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth during her application for the top magistrate's post.

He said this violates the eligibility requirement of integrity for the position of Chief Justice.

"By submitting SALNs less than those required by the JBC (Judicial and Bar Council) of other applicants for Chief Justice, and without lawful justification for her non-compliance, Respondent was unable to prove her integrity," Calida said in the petition.

Calida filed the petition based on a letter request filed by suspended lawyer Eligio Mallari on February 21.

In an earlier briefing, the Solicitor General said he filed the petition as "an act of kindness to a fellow lawyer," but called Sereno a "de facto" officer.

"I will file a petition for quo warranto at the Supreme Court where you will be judged by your peers who know you and the Constitution better. I don't expect you to appreciate this, but believe me, this is an act of kindness to a fellow lawyer," Calida said, addressing Sereno, in the briefing before filing the petition.

According to the rules of court, the government can initiate quo warranto proceedings against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office; a public person who commits an act that serves as a ground for the forfeiture of the position; or an association which acts as a corporation in the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority to act. 

Calida said the Office of the Solicitor General will not let Sereno, who is on indefinite leave, "to undergo the indignity that the late Chief Justice Renato Corona suffered at the hands of politicians who unjustly convicted him."

"You do not deserve that," Calida said, arguing that quo warranto proceedings, not impeachment, is the "proper remedy" in Sereno's case.

Calida, in a draft of the petition, asked the high tribunal to oust Sereno from the office of the Chief Justice, a position he claimed that the magistrate has been "unlawfully" holding.

"In the present petition, the Republic through Solicitor General Jose C. Calida asks this Honorable Court exercise its original jurisdiction to oust Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno from the office of the Chief Justice, in obeisance to the Court’s solemn constitutional duty to apply the law without fear or favor," the petition read.

"She is unlawfully holding the position of Chief Justice; the Court cannot, therefore, shirk its responsibility to declare the position vacant," it added.

Sereno's camp has yet to issue a statement on Calida's petition.

The petition does not cite Sereno's questioned psychological test results.

Calida said the issue over the alleged non-submission of at least 10 SALNs would be sufficient for their petition. He said it was also in an "act of kindness" on his part that his office did not "dig into" Sereno's psychological and psychiatric exam scores.

The petition also does not name the Judicial and Bar Council as a respondent, because only Sereno, he said, is "unlawfully holding" the position.

GMA News Online has sought comment from a spokesperson for Sereno.

Malacañang repeated its previous pronouncement that it would wait for the SC to rule on the petition.

"We have consistently taken a view that we leave it to Congress to remove the Chief Justice if there are grounds to do so. Now that there are two petitions pending in court, we leave it to the Supreme Court to resolve these two separate petitions. However, we stand by our constitutional duty that we will enforce the decision of the Supreme Court whatever it may be," presidential spokesperson Harry Roque said in a press briefing. 

"Let's just say that this is unprecedented. While the normal rule is that impeachable officers can only be removed through impeachment, the petitioners, who I believe are fully cognizant of this doctrine, probably feel that under the circumstance the general rule should not be applicable. So let's wait for the decision of the Supreme Court," he added.

Prescribed

In a statement on Saturday, Albay 1st District Representative Edcel Lagman said the quo warranto proceedings against Sereno will fail because it "has long prescribed."

Lagman cited that Section 11 of Rule 66 of the Rules of Court says a petition for quo warranto must be filed within one year after an official's appointment.

He said it would not apply to Sereno's case because she was appointed to the position six years ago.

Section 11 reads: “Nothing contained in this Rule shall be construed to authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his ouster from office unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose.”

Calida, however, argued that "the state is not bound by prescription."

"Secondly, we will reckon it from the date of discovery," he said.

Calida also took exception to concerns on conflict of interest, arising from the fact that some of the justices who will eventually tackle his petition testified against Sereno at House hearings on lawyer Lorenzo Gadon's impeachment complaint.

"They were there because they were subpoenaed by the House of Representatives. They cannot also ignore the subpoena. That would be unconstitutional, because the House of Representatives is the one handling the impeachment. There is no conflict of interest there," he said.

Calida also denied that the petition for quo warranto is an admission of the weakness of Gadon's impeachment complaint.

"No, it is not admission. This is, in fact, the proof of the strength of the state to oust Atty. Sereno from her office," he said.

The quo warranto appeal against Sereno comes amid impeachment proceedings by the House justice committee.

Once impeached by the House of Representatives, the Senate will convene into an impeachment court to tackle the allegations against Sereno.

Sereno has been expecting the Senate impeachment trial, the main reason she cited in her indefinite leave of absence from the high court. —With a report from Virgil Lopez/ALG/KG, GMA News