MANILA — Ousted Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to reverse its May 11 decision to grant the quo warranto petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General which effectively nullify her appointment as chief magistrate.
Though her lawyers, Sereno filed the 205-page motion for reconsideration an hour before the closing of office, beating the May 30 deadline for the filing of the MR. Sereno received the 153-page decision on May 15.
In her MR, Sereno said the six magistrates in the majority should recuse from the case. Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam, Lucas Bersamin and Samuel Martires should have not joined in the deliberation of the quo warranto petition for showing bias against her, Sereno said.
“This is essentially a plea to the Honorable Court to do what is right and just. And the right and just thing to do, as dictated by the respondent’s fundamental right to due process is to disqualify the six Honorable Justices, who had lost the impartiality to hear and decide this case,” Sereno said.
She said the disqualification of the six magistrates is mandatory on the ground of actual bias based on their pronouncements made against her before the House of Representatives during its hearing on the impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Larry Gadon.
Sereno said an impartial tribunal is an “indispensable prerequisite of due process,” reiterating that a Chief Justice can only be removed via impeachment proceedings as stated in the Constitution.
In seeking the reversal of the Court’s ruling, Sereno argued that the nullification of her appointment through the quo warranto petition is null and void as it was rendered in violation of her right to due process.
“The independence of the judiciary turns on this Court’s adherence to this rule. The proverbial path to perdition which the majority of this Court has taken that is paved mainly with the intention of removing the Chief Justice by any means, can lead only to the destruction of judicial independence and the separation of powers,” Sereno said.
“That is a consequence, unintended as it may be, that the Respondent earnestly asks this Court to veer away from,” she added.
Voting 8-6, the SC granted the quo warranto petition to remove Sereno from office on the basis of a supposedly invalid appointment in 2012.
In its decision, the SC majority ruled that Sereno’s failure to submit her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) as 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.
However, Sereno said the majority violated her constitutional right to due process when it ignored evidence that she had filed her UP SALNs. (Christopher Lloyd Caliwan/PNA)
