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. Throughout 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. Also,
Jusctice De Castro’s way of questioning the witness by extracting more of what was being asked
for and trying to bring about informations that are not yet readily disclosed. In the first place,
there is no reason to divulge some of the documents for the meantime because nowhere in the
petition it is to be found. Based on the rules, the contents of the petition should only be the
center or source of questions to be asked, and beyond it cannot be torlerated.
With regard to burden of proof, the plaintiff claimed that the evidence adduced like the
certification of UPHRDO is enough. The burden now shifts to the respondent, who must offer
evidence that she indeed filed her SALNs. As far as the proceeding is concerned, there is no
clear view if the petitioner had already discharged the burden of proof founded on the evidence
submitted. Since a Quo Warranto Proceeding ,if proper, is a special civil action. The quantum of
evidenece requied is preponderance of evidence and not merely substantial evidence. The court
may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witness’ manner of testifying, her
intelligence, her means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which she are testifying, the
nature of the facts to which she she testfy, the probability or improbability of her testimony, her
interest or want of interest, and also her personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately
appear upon the trial.Furthermore, the court may also consider the number of witnesses,
though the preponderance is not necessarily with great number. In the case, the plaintiff
sustained the adequacy of the certification as basis to shift the burden to the respondent which
is wrong as other circumstances was disregaraded. The testimony of the witness must also be
given weight to contradict the assertion of the other party.
As a final point, the quo warranto proceeding against the Chief Justice in the Supreme
Court should not have seen the light of day at all. When it was filed, it should have been
dismissed outright as it is an outrage against the constitutional system and an affront to our
democratic values. It cannot even be argued that this circumvention is within the constitutional
system of check-and-balances precisely because nowhere in the Consitution is it allowed for a
President to initiate the ouster of SC justices. To reiterate, that power does not exist in the
President whether directly or indirectly. That power is lodged somehwere else: the House of
Representative and the Senate, the two components of another government branch, the
legislature. And that is precisely why , under the Constitution, the specific manner of removing a
justice, in this case a Chief Justice, is provided. That is through impeachment trial in the Senate
and no other. The constitutional initiator is even expressly specified by the constitution. It is the
House of Representative of Congress and no other. The narrow constitutional specification as to
where the power lies bars any and all inferences purportedly sourced from the Constitution that
any entity, agency or branch of government has a similar or concurrent authority to initiate the
ouster of a magistrate of the Supreme Court, much more the Chief Justice.