Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The Supreme Court, through a Quo Warranto Proceeding, had decided to oust Maria
Lourdes Sereno as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. It was a vote of 8 Justices in favor of the
decision and 6 Justices against. As a law student, having no less than sufficient knowledge of the
law, I disagree with this. It is enshrined in the Philippine Constitution, the fundamental law of
the land, that a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can only be removed from office through an
impeachment proceeding.
As provided for by Section 2, Article XI of the Philippine Constitution, “The President,
the VicePresident, the MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT, the Members of the
IMPEACHMENT for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and
employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.” It is clear
in this provision that members of the Supreme Court which includes the Chief Justice may be
removed from office through impeachment for the abovementioned grounds.
Quo Warranto, on the other hand, as provided for by Section 1, Rule 66 of the Rules of
Court is an action for the usurpation of a public office, position or franchise may be commenced
by a verified petition brought in the name of the Republic of the Philippines against: (a) A person
1
who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a public office, position or franchise;
(b) A public officer who does or suffers an act which, by the provision of law, constitutes a
ground for the forfeiture of his office; or (c) An association which acts as a corporation within
the Philippines without being legally incorporated or without lawful authority so to act. As for
Sereno’s case, subsection A was the ground for the filing of the petition. It was alleged that
Sereno unlawfully held the position since she wasn’t qualified in the first place for the reason
that she did not submit her SALN for certain number of years as a prerequisite for the
assumption of office.
Assuming that the filing of the Quo Warranto petition was proper, the period for the
filing of such petition had already lapsed. Section 11, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court provides
for a limitation for the filing of the petition which states that “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, nor to authorize an action for
damages in accordance with the provisions of the next preceding section unless the same be
commenced within one (1) year after the entry of the judgment establishing the petitioner's right
to the office in question.” Sereno has been in position since 2012, therefore, the filing of the
petition had already lapsed in 2013. The Court should have not acquired jurisdiction over the
case since it was filed only in 2018, 5years beyond the prescriptive period.
2
Most of the members of the legal profession declared May 11, 2018, the day of the
promulgation of Judgment of the case against Sereno, as the darkest hours of Philippine
democracy as well as the legal system. The Philippine Constitution wasn’t upheld and it is clear
that the decision was led by political motive.