Critique on the Quo Warranto Proceeding against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno

Every wrong act has its consequences but cannot be automatically adjudged guilty without due
process of law. The Constitution, as the basic law of the land, provides such right giving a person the
opportunity to be heard and to produce evidence including necessary documents proving his claim or
defense against any inquiry or presumption that would make him answerable if duly proven. We cannot
rely only to our common knowledge on the idea of innocence if such is deliberately attacked by someone.
There must be a proper proceeding applying the pertinent laws which must be related to the case. This
nation is governed by law, not by any authority. As a citizen, we must and should follow the rule of law.

The question that comes first about this issue is whether or not the Chief Justice can be subjected
to a Quo Warranto Proceeding. Many expressed their legal opinion on this matter. By occupying the
highest position in the Judiciary, the Chief Justice is a public officer which can only be ousted through
impeachment proceeding as provided for by the Constitution. As a servant for the public, trust is reposed
unto him to discharge her official function as the highest magistrate of the land. She ensures that justice
will be served. But it is a different story now. The head of the Judiciary is now being criticized as to her
integrity to lead one branch of the government. The plaintiff, through the Solicitor General, raised
substantive issues like the ineligibility of the Chief Justice to occupy the highest post of the Judiciary due
to failure to disclose her SALNs. According to them, Section 11, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court does not
apply because the one year prescriptive period applies only if the filer of a Quo Warranto Proceeding is a
private individual. Thus, the government, through the Office of the Solicitor General, may commence the
filing of a Quo Warranto Proceeding without prescription. In addition, although duly appointed or elected
public officer, Quo Warranto Proceeding is the proper remedy other than impeachment to remove a
person holding public office if he or she really is ineligible. To counter the issue on integrity and ineligibility
to hold public office by the respondent Chief Justice, she, through his legal counsel, firmly stands that
SALNs were filed on time and had not acquired ill-gotten wealth; that she complied with all the
requirements provided for by the law. Therefore, she is qualified to occupy the seat. She maintained that
she can only be removed from public office through impeachment proceeding. What the law mandates
must be strictly followed. Construing the meaning of the law other than what it originally meant might
affect the intended outcome of the proceeding. When the law does not distinguish, the court must not
distinguish. An impeachable public officer with impeachable grounds can only be overthrown by
impeachment. The basis of which is in the wordings of the Constitution which must be respected as it is
the backbone of all the laws.

Whatever the result of the Quo Warranto Proceeding, it shall not be the basis of conducting an
impeachment proceeding against the Chief Justice. Before impeachment would pursue, one of the
grounds must be provided for by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to expel the
Chief Justice. And as such, she cannot be ousted through a Quo Warranto Proceeding. More importantly,
only the Congress has the sole power and authority to conduct an impeachment proceeding where an
impeachable public officer, like the Chief Justice, can be removed. A blatant violation of the Constitution
if the Chief Justice will be removed in office through a Quo Waranto Proceeding. The two remedies cannot
be exercised by the same department. Moreover, if in case there be impeachment against the Chief
Justice, and the Congress finds no substantial evidence to warrant the expulsion of the former, she
remains in the position. In contrary, a Quo Warranto Proceeding will not push through if in case the
Congress finds removal from office is proper.

As a witness, a person is accorded with rights so as to protect from irrelevant, improper and
insulting questions, and in any harassing and insulting demeanor. During the minutes of the trial, other
Justices just kept on repeating their questions which the witness, the Chief Justice, had already answered.
The duty of the Bench is to apply the law in the case and decide with impartiality. They should free from
any bias that would affect their decisions lately. On the part of the Chief justice, as a witness, she must
still observe the proper manner and conduct when being ask by the Associate Justices sitting as if like a
judge/s in a regular court.