By Cesar Europa
The ruling in Republic of the Philippines vs. Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428 has certainly created a lot of public interest, to say the least.
When several people, friends, media and friends in media, were asking for my take on the decision, I said I want to read the decision first. Honestly, I did not know it was going to be 153 pages long.
After reading the decision, I decided to try and synthesize the more relevant issues, particularly those that some have said were shocking to the extent of saying that it heralds the death of judicial independence.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE CAN BE REMOVED BY IMPEACHMENT ONLY
This has been the first thing out of the mouths of those who felt that the quo warranto petition should have been dismissed outright.
In fine, the decision tackled this, primarily, by citing the Constitution, Section 2 of Article XI, in particular.
Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman MAY BE REMOVED from office on 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.
By statutory construction, the semantics of the provision, the use of the words “MAY BE” and the absence of any words of exclusivity, does not make impeachment the exclusive remedy to remove a sitting impeachable officer.
As a cited example, the President or Vice-President, can be also removed through an election case filed with the Supreme Court sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.
This is also not something new as the Supreme Court had previously assumed jurisdiction over the petitions for quo warranto filed by former President Joseph Estrada against former Ombdusman Aniano Desierto and former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, both of whom were sitting impeachable officers.
Thus, the conclusion was that impeachment is not the ONLY way of removing a sitting Chief Justice.
It bears citing that the petition looked into the question of whether or not she validly holds the position of an impeachable officer in the first place, the validity of her appointment as such.
THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR QUO WARRANTO HAS PRESCRIBED
This was exactly what came to mind when I first heard about the quo warranto petition as I immediately recalled that the Rules of Court provides for a one-year period to file the petition. The period stems from Section 11 of Rule 66.
However, the decision cites that prescription does not lie against the State and that, under Section 2 of Rule 66, it was compulsory for the Solicitor General to initiate petition either upon the direction of the President or when good grounds for such a petition come to light.
The legislative basis for Rule 66, Act No. 160 did not give the 1 year prescriptive period absolute application and, in the case of Agcaoili vs. Suguitan, it was clearly explained that the 1 year prescriptive period is inapplicable in a quo warranto action by the Government. “(N)ullum temus occurit regi or "no time runs against the king" and all the previous decided cases where the 1 year period was strictly enforced were cases initiated by private individuals.
THE QUO WARRANTO PETITION IS BARRED BY THE PENDING IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS
Forum shopping has also been cited in opposition to the quo warranto petition.
However, the decision cited the intrinsic differences between these two remedies. “In quo warranto, the cause of action lies on the susurping intruding, or unlawfully holding or exercising of a public office, while in impeachment, it is the commission of an impeachable offense.
There could be no forum shopping because a judgment in one would not be res judicata as far as the other is concerned.
Moreover, the decision cited the fact that there is WAS NO IMPEACHMENT CASE YET at the time of filing of the quo warranto petition, because, akin to a preliminary investigation to determine probable cause, the House Committee on Justice’s determination only determines whether or not the impeachment against the respondent should go to trial before the Senate.
THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT SALNs DOES NOT GO INTO THE ISSUE OF INTEGRITY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING OR CHARGE OF AMASSING ILL GOTTEN WEALTH
Given that the respondent did, in fact, fail to faithfully submit her SALNs in relation to her stints in government, the issue was raised that this fact alone does not raise questions on her integrity as a qualification for appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
On this, the respondent fell on her own sword, as the decision cites her own dissenting opinion in Phil. Savings Bank vs. Senate Impeachment Court saying, in essence, that failure to comply with the law is prima facie evidence of unexplained wealth, which may result in the dismissal from service of the public officer.
Moreover, it was shown, on the basis of the minutes of the meetings of the Judicial and Bar Council that the submission of the past ten (10) SALNs from 2001-2011 by applicants for the Chief Justice Position, as sufficient compliance which was even lighter than the usual requirement for the submission of ALL SALNs but, despite extensions of the deadline the respondent submitted only 3 SALNs for her 20 year service in the University of the Philippines. The statements of Senator Francis Escudero, representing Congress in the JBC, on this were cited as he explained that this was important considering that the reason why Chief Justice Corona was removed from office was due to inaccuracies in his SALN.
More importantly, the decision cites the findings that there was, on several points, a failure to disclose material facts and the concealment thereof in the respondent’s failure to submit her SALN’s which go into the very heart of the qualification of integrity in applying for the position of Chief Justice.
Part of this was her failure to include her attorney’s fees from the Piatco case which amounted to more than P30 Million Pesos.
In relation to this, the decision cited the fact that in several instances, the Supreme Court has made the failure of court employees to include businesses in their SALNs as a basis for summary dismissal and forfeiture of benefits.
The foregoing are just some of the more material issues discussed in the decision, summarized as best I can for there were many other sub-issues and non related issues in the case from inhibition to the intervention of parties.
In ending, I would like to say that each and every part of the decision, each finding and conclusion, had legal, jurisprudential, and factual basis. As to whether or not the appreciation was proper and correct, I simply do not assume to be better qualified than the justices of the Supreme Court to say that.
The fact is that there will always be differing and separate opinions. Even the signature page of the decision shows this.
IS THIS THE DEATH OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE?
Many have said that the decision is the death of judicial independence.
I say, it could be, if it is shown that the decision was a capitulation, on bended knee, by the majority to the desires of the Executive Department.
However, in the absence of any clear evidence that this was so, I would say that the conclusion that the justices comprising the majority were coerced or enticed into deciding the way they did would be unfair, unjust, and presently undeserved.
The fact is that, unlike the Divine, we simply do not have the power to look into men’s souls and see what is in their hearts.
The last question is, of course, WAS THE DECISION CORRECT? On this, I shall, once more, defer to US Supreme Court Justice Jackson…. THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT FINAL BECAUSE IT IS INFALLIBLE, IT IS INFALLIBLE BECAUSE IT IS FINAL!
P.S. baka may part 2 when I get to read the separate and dissenting opinions
The ruling in Republic of the Philippines vs. Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428 has certainly created a lot of public interest, to say the least.
When several people, friends, media and friends in media, were asking for my take on the decision, I said I want to read the decision first. Honestly, I did not know it was going to be 153 pages long.
After reading the decision, I decided to try and synthesize the more relevant issues, particularly those that some have said were shocking to the extent of saying that it heralds the death of judicial independence.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE CAN BE REMOVED BY IMPEACHMENT ONLY
This has been the first thing out of the mouths of those who felt that the quo warranto petition should have been dismissed outright.
In fine, the decision tackled this, primarily, by citing the Constitution, Section 2 of Article XI, in particular.
Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman MAY BE REMOVED from office on 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.
By statutory construction, the semantics of the provision, the use of the words “MAY BE” and the absence of any words of exclusivity, does not make impeachment the exclusive remedy to remove a sitting impeachable officer.
As a cited example, the President or Vice-President, can be also removed through an election case filed with the Supreme Court sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.
This is also not something new as the Supreme Court had previously assumed jurisdiction over the petitions for quo warranto filed by former President Joseph Estrada against former Ombdusman Aniano Desierto and former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, both of whom were sitting impeachable officers.
Thus, the conclusion was that impeachment is not the ONLY way of removing a sitting Chief Justice.
It bears citing that the petition looked into the question of whether or not she validly holds the position of an impeachable officer in the first place, the validity of her appointment as such.
THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR QUO WARRANTO HAS PRESCRIBED
This was exactly what came to mind when I first heard about the quo warranto petition as I immediately recalled that the Rules of Court provides for a one-year period to file the petition. The period stems from Section 11 of Rule 66.
However, the decision cites that prescription does not lie against the State and that, under Section 2 of Rule 66, it was compulsory for the Solicitor General to initiate petition either upon the direction of the President or when good grounds for such a petition come to light.
The legislative basis for Rule 66, Act No. 160 did not give the 1 year prescriptive period absolute application and, in the case of Agcaoili vs. Suguitan, it was clearly explained that the 1 year prescriptive period is inapplicable in a quo warranto action by the Government. “(N)ullum temus occurit regi or "no time runs against the king" and all the previous decided cases where the 1 year period was strictly enforced were cases initiated by private individuals.
THE QUO WARRANTO PETITION IS BARRED BY THE PENDING IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS
Forum shopping has also been cited in opposition to the quo warranto petition.
However, the decision cited the intrinsic differences between these two remedies. “In quo warranto, the cause of action lies on the susurping intruding, or unlawfully holding or exercising of a public office, while in impeachment, it is the commission of an impeachable offense.
There could be no forum shopping because a judgment in one would not be res judicata as far as the other is concerned.
Moreover, the decision cited the fact that there is WAS NO IMPEACHMENT CASE YET at the time of filing of the quo warranto petition, because, akin to a preliminary investigation to determine probable cause, the House Committee on Justice’s determination only determines whether or not the impeachment against the respondent should go to trial before the Senate.
THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT SALNs DOES NOT GO INTO THE ISSUE OF INTEGRITY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING OR CHARGE OF AMASSING ILL GOTTEN WEALTH
Given that the respondent did, in fact, fail to faithfully submit her SALNs in relation to her stints in government, the issue was raised that this fact alone does not raise questions on her integrity as a qualification for appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
On this, the respondent fell on her own sword, as the decision cites her own dissenting opinion in Phil. Savings Bank vs. Senate Impeachment Court saying, in essence, that failure to comply with the law is prima facie evidence of unexplained wealth, which may result in the dismissal from service of the public officer.
Moreover, it was shown, on the basis of the minutes of the meetings of the Judicial and Bar Council that the submission of the past ten (10) SALNs from 2001-2011 by applicants for the Chief Justice Position, as sufficient compliance which was even lighter than the usual requirement for the submission of ALL SALNs but, despite extensions of the deadline the respondent submitted only 3 SALNs for her 20 year service in the University of the Philippines. The statements of Senator Francis Escudero, representing Congress in the JBC, on this were cited as he explained that this was important considering that the reason why Chief Justice Corona was removed from office was due to inaccuracies in his SALN.
More importantly, the decision cites the findings that there was, on several points, a failure to disclose material facts and the concealment thereof in the respondent’s failure to submit her SALN’s which go into the very heart of the qualification of integrity in applying for the position of Chief Justice.
Part of this was her failure to include her attorney’s fees from the Piatco case which amounted to more than P30 Million Pesos.
In relation to this, the decision cited the fact that in several instances, the Supreme Court has made the failure of court employees to include businesses in their SALNs as a basis for summary dismissal and forfeiture of benefits.
The foregoing are just some of the more material issues discussed in the decision, summarized as best I can for there were many other sub-issues and non related issues in the case from inhibition to the intervention of parties.
In ending, I would like to say that each and every part of the decision, each finding and conclusion, had legal, jurisprudential, and factual basis. As to whether or not the appreciation was proper and correct, I simply do not assume to be better qualified than the justices of the Supreme Court to say that.
The fact is that there will always be differing and separate opinions. Even the signature page of the decision shows this.
IS THIS THE DEATH OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE?
Many have said that the decision is the death of judicial independence.
I say, it could be, if it is shown that the decision was a capitulation, on bended knee, by the majority to the desires of the Executive Department.
However, in the absence of any clear evidence that this was so, I would say that the conclusion that the justices comprising the majority were coerced or enticed into deciding the way they did would be unfair, unjust, and presently undeserved.
The fact is that, unlike the Divine, we simply do not have the power to look into men’s souls and see what is in their hearts.
The last question is, of course, WAS THE DECISION CORRECT? On this, I shall, once more, defer to US Supreme Court Justice Jackson…. THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT FINAL BECAUSE IT IS INFALLIBLE, IT IS INFALLIBLE BECAUSE IT IS FINAL!
P.S. baka may part 2 when I get to read the separate and dissenting opinions
No comments:
Post a Comment