SC seen to decide earlier on Sereno’s fate

MANILA, Philippines — The fate of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno may be known sooner than expected as the Supreme Court (SC) decided to deliberate and decide on the quo warranto petition the solicitor general filed against her stay in office.

An insider revealed that the special session of the justices earlier set for May 17 has been moved to May 11. The source, who requested anonymity for lack of authority to speak for the Court, did not reveal the reason for the change in schedule.

The justices hold their decision-writing recess in May, but usually conduct special sessions to decide on urgent cases.

Moving the deliberation to an earlier date comes a few days ahead of the House of Representatives’ May 15 resumption of session, when lawmakers are expected to vote on the articles of impeachment also filed against the Chief Justice.

Should the high court grant the petition of Solicitor General Jose Calida and order the immediate removal of Sereno, it could make the impeachment case moot and academic.

Sereno, who has gone on indefinite leave since March 1, has questioned the haste her colleagues in the SC have taken to resolve the quo warranto case. She also questioned why her fellow justices would opt to resolve the case during the Court’s decision-writing break.

“It’s really puzzling because there is no reason to rush (the decision),” she said in a recent speech.

Calida, through the quo warranto petition filed last month, asked the SC to nullify Sereno’s appointment because of her ineligibility for the top judicial post and to order her removal from office as a de facto official whose authority was hinged on an appointment that was void from the start.

The solicitor general argued that Sereno did not meet the specific qualification of proven integrity for the chief justice post with her failure to comply with the required submission of 10-year statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALNs).

A quo warranto petition, as provided in both Article VIII Section 5(1) of the Constitution and Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, challenges the legal basis of one’s appointment and seeks the removal of the respondent from office because of lack of qualification or legal basis to continue holding such office.

It was filed while Sereno faced impeachment proceedings in Congress where the House justice committee has just approved the articles of impeachment for deliberations of the plenary.