MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has reprimanded ousted chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno for publicly discussing the merits of the quo warranto petition against her and making remarks against several magistrates whom she accused of bias against her.
This was announced by SC Spokesman Theodore Te in a press briefing after the SC’s en banc session on Tuesday.
Aside from the granting of the quo warranto petition ousting her from office last May 11, the High Court also issued a show cause order to Sereno for discussing the case even while pending in court.
The SC noted that Sereno violated the “sub judice” rule and “cast aspersions and ill motives” to some magistrates.
“The Court, acting on the Show Cause order in its May 11, 2018 Decision, reprimanded respondent with a stern warning that a repetition of the same acts will merit a heavier penalty,” Te said as he read the ruling of High Court.
Sought for comment, lawyer Jojo Lacanilao, spokesperson of the ousted top magistrate, said they have yet to receive the copy of resolution.
“We have not received the copy of the resolution. CJ Sereno is reserving her comments until she sees the resolution,” he said in text message sent to reporters.
On June 19, the High Court denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by Sereno, who is the first top magistrate to be removed from office through quo warranto proceedings.
The voting stayed at 8-6 in favor of the quo warranto case against Sereno last May 11.
Those who voted to grant the quo warranto petition against Sereno were Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Samuel Martires, Andres Reyes Jr., Alexander Gesmundo, and Noel Tijam — who penned the Court’s decision.
Those who dissented were Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco, Mariano Del Castillo, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic Leonen and Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa.
In its decision, the SC ruled that Sereno’s failure to submit her SALNs as a law professor at the University of the Philippines would mean “her integrity was not established at the time of her application,” making her ineligible to hold her position. (Christopher Lloyd Caliwan/PNA)
