A few days has passed and the historic ouster of a sitting Chief Justice by
way a petition Quo Warranto.
Maria Lourdes Sereno is the first Chief Justice to be removed by way of a
quo warranto proceeding.
The Solicitor General filed the petition because of Sereno’s failure to
submit the required Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs)
under oath for a period of 10 years preceding her application for Chief
Justice.
 |
| Protesters outside the Supreme Court re Sereno's ouster(photo credit to Philstar) |
All sectors of society has their own opinions of the matter, moreso the so
called bleeding hearts- the Yellow cult they have made declarations as if it is
already the end of the country’s future. “Dark ages” “Death of Democracy” “Diminished
Democracy” are but some of the tag lines the opposition have made to color the
country’s live and vibrant democracy in their favor and of course with the
intent to make a bad picture of the current sitting administration.
Manila Times resident columnist Professor Antonio P. Contreras, In his
column today (May 15, 2018) titled “Democracy is alive and well” has explained
that the act done by the Supreme Court is but a manifestation of a vibrant
working democratic society and not what the opposition likes us to believe.
For purposes of full understanding, truthfulness and clarity ,we have quoted
in full the whole article.
Democracy is alive and well
EVEN without reading the 153-page ponencia of Justice Noel Tijam which
effectively declared Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno as an unwarranted and illegal
occupant of the post of Chief Justice, her partisans went into a feeding frenzy
of expletives, gnashing their teeth, hyperventilating, practically declaring
that democracy has just died.
I see lawyers expressing disgust about their profession, law students
asking themselves if they have chosen the right course, and at least one of my
former students expressing relief that she dragged her feet on her decision to
enter law school.
It was a heyday for professors who teach objective science to profess their
partisan politics, and for performance activists to act out their rage.
Frankly, it is reasonable to doubt if many of these people have actually
read the Constitution and the rules of court, and have familiarized themselves
with the quo warranto process, and the quo warranto proceedings anent to
Sereno’s eventual removal. Hence, it would be asking too much to expect them to
read the entire decision before they even utter their expletives.
After all, democracy allows people to show their disgust. There is an equal access to feelings of rage, freely expressed, unbridled and unfettered. One of the key elements of democracy is that everyone is free to malign it, and each one has a right to proclaim its death.
The bone of contention of the angry Sereno supporters is focused on their
belief that her ouster ends the principle of checks and balances, and
practically obliterated judicial independence. They lament the fact that the
quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida, who is
administratively under the Office of the President, has been decided by a court
now allegedly under his thumb, effectively denying Congress its power to remove
an impeachable official which they alleged as the only manner provided for in
the Constitution. Critics of the President paint this as an unconstitutional
move that will end up in the concentration of power in a Duterte government
which Luis Teodoro, a Duterte critic, describes as “the most violent and most
incompetent wing of the ruling clique.”
What is evident in the narrative of the angry, noisy protesting crowd is
their mistaken belief that a quo warranto is not a valid and legal route to remove
a sitting Chief Justice, despite the fact that nine justices have ruled that it
is a valid remedy to take even for impeachable officials.
Justice Tijam’s ponencia, concurred in by seven other justices on the issue
of granting the quo warranto, and joined by Associate Justice Presbiterio
Velasco on the issue of its propriety as a remedy, has deftly traced the
histories of impeachment and quo warranto, and their significant differences,
and why Sereno’s removal by quo warranto is not an unconstitutional move. The
decision also skillfully dissected the words of the Constitution, and of
prevailing jurisprudence, to negate the claim that the period to avail of this
remedy has already prescribed.
In a democracy, Sereno supporters have every right not to believe the legal
opinions of these magistrates. They even have the freedom to proclaim with
feeling their incantations about the reign of injustice, and post memes
demonizing the eight justices who voted to oust Sereno. Democracy allows for
dissent.
But at the end of the day, democracy is about majority rule, and certainly
eight justices voting for Sereno’s removal prevails over the six who did not,
and the voice of the eight now becomes the law of the land. After all, the
court may be composed of men and women who are not infallible, but it is still
supreme.
Sereno’s angry supporters may remain to be dominated by their feelings of
rage and disgust.
But they have to eventually realize that the ruling of the court goes
beyond Sereno and their rage.
If only they can remove Sereno from the picture, and suspend their anger
and hatred towards the President, they may just see that far from weakening
democracy to cause its demise, the court’s ruling may in fact have strengthened
it.
The court’s ruling that quo warranto is an available remedy even for
impeachable officials, including members of the judiciary, has provided another
avenue for the Republic and its citizens to hold public officials accountable
other than through impeachment. This is particularly true when these officials
acquire their position through illegal means, or by hiding their dirty secrets,
the illegal acts they committed prior to obtain the post and other
disqualifying circumstances from the State and the public. It can also provide
a remedy for the Republic and the citizens to remove people who are appointed
to impeachable positions who belatedly are revealed to possess such
disqualifying attributes that do not qualify as impeachable offenses.
Quo warranto, in contrast to impeachment, is not a political process that
only acquires a quasi-judicial character. It is by its very nature a judicial
proceeding. This is the source of its strength as a remedy. As it is presided
over by the judiciary, there is more robust assurance for the supremacy of evidence,
the recognition of jurisprudence and precedents, and a respect for due process
and the right to appeal.
Angry Sereno supporters are placing too much hype on the specter of
possible abuse, where quo warranto petitions will be filed left and right to
harass impeachable officials. The fact that quo warranto lies in the province
of the judiciary will provide a necessary mechanism to check for that abuse.
Furthermore, the availability of quo warranto as an option for the State, or
any aggrieved party, to deny office to those holding an illicit, unqualified or
improper appointment, can also serve as an impetus for the Judicial and Bar
Council, the Commission on Appointments and the President to practice due
diligence to ensure that only the qualified will be nominated, and to conduct a
more serious vetting process to inquire into possible disqualifying
circumstances of every nominee.
It is unfortunate for Sereno supporters that she is a casualty of this
avenue for holding impeachable officials accountable for their qualifications,
and for their acts prior to their appointments.
Her supporters are entitled to their rage. But the Republic is entitled to
a democracy that is not measured only because it appeases that rage, but that
it serves the greater legacy that goes beyond the comfort and tenure of one
unqualified person.
What can you say about this?
Share us your thoughts by simply leaving on the comment section below. For
more news updates, feel free to visit our site often.
Stay updated
with today's relevant news and trends by hitting the LIKE button.
Thanks for
dropping by and reading this post.
Report from Manila Times
0 comments