SC sets limits to quo warranto petitions in decision vs Sereno

The Supreme Court (SC), which had unprecedentedly ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno by granting quo warranto petition against her, also set limits to future quo warranto actions.

In the 153-page ruling granting Solicitor General Jose Calida's ouster plea against the then Chief Justice, the SC, through Associate Justice Noel Tijam, set the boundaries on what could and what could not be the subject of a quo warranto petition.

According to the ruling, a proper subject of a quo warranto petition was "an act or omission committed prior to or at the time of appointment or election relating to an official's qualifications to hold office as to render such appointment or election invalid."

This came with the condition that "the requisites for the commencement" of the petition were present.

On the other hand, what could not be the subject for a quo warranto petition were "acts or omissions, even if it relates to the qualification of integrity, being a continuing requirement but nonetheless committed during the incumbency of a validly appointed and/or validly elected official."

In this case, the official in question would be the subject of impeachment, if he or she is an impeachable officer, and the alleged act constituted an impeachable offense.

Otherwise, actions could be disciplinary, administrative, or criminal, the SC said.

The SC said it drew this line "for the guidance of the bench and the bar, and to obviate confusion in the future as to when quo warranto as a remedy to oust an ineligible public official may be availed of, and in keeping with the Court's function of harmonizing the laws and the rules with the Constitution."

In a historic 8-6 vote, the SC expelled Sereno from the Office of the Chief Justice as it granted Calida's petition for quo warranto, which sought the invalidation of the top judge's appointment over an alleged lack of integrity.

Distinct from impeachment, an action for quo warranto (Latin for "by what authority") could be initiated by a petition brought in behalf of the Philippine republic against, among others, "a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise." — Nicole-Anne C. Lagrimas/DVM, GMA News