Everybody and anybody for that matter is entitled to his/her opinion. That is a fact in a democracy where market place of ideas flourish. That said, please allow me, therefore, to ventillate my piece of mind on the fate of ex-CJ Maria Lourdes Sereno. I believe in my own little understanding and appreciation of arguments that the "Quo Warranto" petition that ousted her is valid, hence this piece, V.A.L.I.D.
(V) Void ab initio- the law is very clear that govt employees and officials needs to submit their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Network (SALN). It is a mandatory requirement for one to apply as Supreme Court justice and Sereno failed in many years so before she assumed office in the highest court of the land (she started as Associate Chief Justice after her stint from the University of the Philippines), she is ineligible and is thus not qualified to sit as Chief Justice. Further, she has deemed committed a crime for not submitting her SALN many times. It is a penal offense and thus it casted doubt on her integrity as she defied the dictum of transparency if not entirely commited a dishonesty. Be it noted that transparency is important to deter graft and corruption and so because of the breach, the appointment henceforth of Sereno as Chief Justice is "void ab initio". Since the very start, her appointment is not valid because she is not eligible to be so. Corollarily, central to her failure to submit her SALN is the non-disclosure of her P37 million attorney's fees when she acted as goverment counsel vs Piatco, the builder of NAIA-3. When ordinary civil servants would fail in submitting their SALN or withhold declaring an asset, they are dismissed outright from govt. service, if a chief justice failed, will she go scot-free? One does not need to be lawyer to understand the legal maxim of "no one is above the law." As Sereno violated the law she has to face the the dire consequence and one of that is of ruling her not eligible to be Chief Justice since day one.
(A) Alone is she, Sereno is not the entire judiciary- stripping Sereno of her title and position is not necessarily an attack against the judiciary. The SC decides collectively, en banc, so by removing Sereno, only her vote was lost. The very reason that she was axed was because her colleagues, majority of them, decided so. It was not an attack then but an act of the majority of that judicial body, them exercising their power as members of the judiciary. A next CJ, one that is qualified and has not commited a violation of the law could always be found and be appointed. The next CJ should be role model in the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials, one that respects to the letter the Philippine constitution.
(L) Legally based decision- some quarters insist that the chief justice based on the constitution can only be remove through "impeachment." I beg to disagree. The very same constitution has a provision of giving the Supreme Court the power to "exercise original jurisdiction" hence the power to act on petition for quo warranto (Article VIII, Section 5(1), 1987 Philippine constitution). In their decision, the SC justices also pointed out the fact that impeachment is not the only absolute means to remove a sitting Chief Justice as the provision thereto (Section 2, Article XI) includes the phrase "maybe removed from office," to wit; "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." That therefore connotes other modes of removing an impeachable official based on this supposed legal hermeneutics. One therefore should not just dealt on a particular law, the constitution has other provisions where one can reason and argue as to its applicability.
(I) Independence of the SC upheld- by exercising their power to act on quo warranto, having original jurisdiction thereto and hence power to act, it preserve the independence of the highest court. What they acted upon was quo warranto petition not an impeachment. Incidentally, the observation of one senator that the decision of the SC on the removal of Sereno is slap in the face of the senate is misplaced. The senate has not yet constituted itself as an impeachment court because the articles of impeachment from the lower house has not been passed through it. Verily, there is no pending impeachment case against Sereno then, what occured was a impeachment proceeding that was haulted because congress was on recess. That proceeding to become a case and its articles for impeachment to be passed to the senate is now rendered "moot and academic."
(D) Defense of public interest- since Sereno is technically not qualified to be CJ, the interest therefore of the public has been defended. The government merely acted against an individual that holds an office unlawfully. The SC for its part decided that Sereno is "disqualified" and "adjudged guilty of unlawfully holding and exercising the office of the Chief Justice." Upon reading their 153 pages decision I find it valid. Lawyers and non-lawyers alike may continue to argue but just the same it will just remain an argument and thus an opinion. It will remain an opinion as the
Supreme Court has spoken and decided that Sereno had unlawfully held the position of being the nation's Chief Justice. Opinyon ra ning akoa migo/miga ug naa moy inyo, inyoha sab kana.
Supreme Court has spoken and decided that Sereno had unlawfully held the position of being the nation's Chief Justice. Opinyon ra ning akoa migo/miga ug naa moy inyo, inyoha sab kana.
No comments:
Post a Comment