Quo warranto can also be used against President, VP — Supreme Court

The petition for quo warranto may be filed against both the President and the Vice President of the Philippines on the grounds of ineligibility or disloyalty to the country, the Supreme Court declared in its decision against its top magistrate.

In its decision promulgated on Friday, May 11, the SC ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno by granting a pleading that accused her of failing to meet the integrity requirement for members of the judiciary.

In the same decision, the SC also said both the President and the Vice President of the Philippines may also be the subject of a quo warranto petition under the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) rules.

"Further, the PET Rules provide that a petition for quo warranto, contesting the election of the President or Vice-President on the ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines, may be filed by any registered voter who has voted in the election concerned within ten days after the proclamation of the winner," the decision read.

"Despite disloyalty to the republic being a crime against public order defined and penalized under the penal code, and thus may likewise be treated as 'other high crimes,' constituting an impeachable offense, quo warranto as a remedy to remove the erring President or Vice-President is nevertheless made expressly available," it added.

Discussions over quo warranto petitions have gained traction in the Philippines after Solicitor General Jose Calida in March filed a petition for quo warranto against Sereno before the Supreme Court, questioning the validity of her appointment.

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."

Calida accused Sereno of doing such, due to her supposed incomplete submission of Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs).

The quo warranto option has since been condemned by various lawmakers, law professors, and law groups who have claimed it is unconstitutional as the only way to remove an impeachable officer is through impeachment.

Senate President Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III likewise said that a quo warranto solution would circumvent the Senate's mandate to act as the impeachment court.

Meanwhile, former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. said any quo warranto petition should have been filed within a year after Sereno took over the position.

However, in its decision against Sereno, the high court said, "To subscribe to the view that appointments or election of impeachable officers are outside judicial review is to cleanse their appointments or election of any possible defect pertaining to the Constitutionally-prescribed qualifications which cannot otherwise be raised in an impeachment proceeding."

"The courts should be able to inquire into the validity of appointments even of impeachable officers," it added. — Jon Viktor D. Cabuenas/BM, GMA News