No constitutional crisis from Sereno's quo warranto ouster – SC

The Supreme Court (SC) insisted that no constitutional crisis could arise from the ouster of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno outside of impeachment, given that the Constitution explained how to resolve conflicts between the branches of government.

The SC, through its ruling ousting Sereno as Chief Justice which was penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam, argued that a constitutional crisis "may arise from a conflict over the determination by the independent branches government of the nature, scope and extent of their respective constitutional powers."

"Thus, there can be no constitutional crisis where the Constitution itself provides the means and bases for the resolution of the 'conflict,'" read the 153-page ruling.

"To reiterate, the Court's exercise of jurisdiction over an action for quo warranto falls within the ambit of its judicial power to settle justiciable issues or actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable."

The SC exercised "original jurisdiction" over quo warranto cases, along with petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and habeas corpus, according to Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. 

Congress' power

Sereno had sought the dismissal of Solicitor General Jose Calida's quo warranto petition against her, arguing that the SC lacked jurisdiction over the case. As a member of the SC, she was an impeachable officer, and. therefore, removable from office through impeachment and conviction in Congress.

However, the SC warned of the effect of giving in to "speculation" that Sereno would face an impeachment trial at the Senate. At present, the articles of impeachment against her had not yet cleared the House plenary.

"Clearly, an outright dismissal of the petition based on speculation that respondent will eventually be tried on impeachment is a clear abdication of the Court's duty to settle actual controversy squarely presented before it," Tijam had insisted.

"Indeed, the easiest way to lose power is to abdicate it."

The ruling also said the "possibility" of a constitutional crisis was no reason for the SC to "abandon its positive constitutional duty" to take cognizance of a case it can decide.

While asserting its power to decide Calida's quo warranto petition, the SC said it was "not arrogating upon itself" the power of Congress to discern whether or not an impeachable officer may be removed by impeachment.

"Quo warranto proceedings are essentially judicial in character - it calls for the exercise of the Supreme Court's constitutional duty and power to decide cases and settle actual controversies," the SC said.

"This constitutional duty cannot be abdicated or transferred in favor of, or in deference to, any other branch of the government including the Congress, even as it acts as an impeachment court through the Senate."

Reneging on this duty and failing to performs its judicial power would, the SC said, "amount to culpable violation of the Constitution."

Reacting to Sereno's ouster, Senate President Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III had warned that a constitutional crisis could occur if the House refused to recognize that the top judge had been removed.

But House Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas said the lower house would wait for the SC's final resolution on the case (Sereno was expected to appeal) before making its next move on the impeachment complaint against her.

Congress resumes session on May 15. — Nicole-Anne Lagrimas/DVM, GMA News