IBP: Supreme Court must reverse ruling on quo warranto

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court’s ruling that granted the quo warranto petition against former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno was a misuse of the law, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines said.

“With due respect, the Honorable Court’s narrowly drawn ruling shows the use of the law to pursue a desired result, that is, the ouster of the chief justice. This erodes, if not demolishes, the Rule of Law for which all members of the bar are sworn to uphold,” read the 14-page appeal that the IBP filed on Monday.

The 40,000-member group of lawyers sought the reversal of the SC’s May 11 decision that nullified Sereno’s appointment as chief justice in 2012.

In its motion for reconsideration, the IBP stressed: “No considerations of politics or animosity justifies the refusal to recognize the constitutionally designed mechanism of impeachment and the doctrines of judicial restraint which are clearly proper.”

Echoing its earlier filed petition-for-intervention, the IBP said that the 1987 Constitution only allows impeachment—a power vested in Congress— as the legal means to oust a sitting chief justice.

The group of lawyers pointed out that the SC must “respect the constitution’s grant of jurisdiction and refrain from exercising a power clearly bestowed by the constitution on another tribunal.”

‘SC is not a trier of facts’

The IBP also said that the SC erred when it “assumed a role which, by law and jurisprudence, is outside its turf.” The group stressed that the SC is not a trier of facts, and determining whether Sereno filed her SALNs “is undeniably a question of fact.”

“What is worse, the Honorable Court failed to maintain the cold neutrality of an impartial judge when it engaged it its own evidence-gathering expedition and sought to supplement the evidence already on record,” the IBP added.

Solicitor General Jose Calida’s quo warranto petition is anchored on Sereno’s failure to submit her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth to the Judicial and Bar Council when she applied as chief justice in 2012. This, according to Calida and as affirmed by the SC ruling, constituted to Sereno’s “lack of integrity” needed to hold the position as head of the Judiciary.

Calida argued that Sereno's appointment was void from the start, so there was no sitting chief justice to impeach.

The IBP also pointed out that the SC “made independent findings of fact, replaced the JBC’s finding with its own, settled the status of the validity of [Sereno's] appointment and caused the ouster of the chief justice of the Supreme Court.”

They stressed that the JBC, while under the supervision of the high tribunal, is beyond its power of interference. The group said that the SC is an “outsider” in the JBC’s process of determining the candidate vying for a position in the Judiciary.

SC only ‘noted’ IBP’s petition for intervention

Last March, the IBP asked the SC to allow their opposition-in-intervention in the quo warranto case. They joined other groups, including Sens. Leila De Lima and Antonio Trillanes IV, seeking the dismissal of Calida’s petition.

The SC, on May 11, ruled to merely “note” the IBP’s opposition, while it denied the other petitions.

The ruling, penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam, read in part: “Even the IBP’s assertion of their ‘fundamental duty to uphold the Constitution, advocate for the rule of law, and safeguard the administration of justice,’ being the official organization of all Philippine lawyers, will not suffice.”

The SC also said that the IBP’s interest is “merely out of ‘sentimental desire’ to uphold the rule of law.”

Sereno filed a motion for reconsideration on the May 11 ruling in person last May 30. Court insiders said that the SC may release the ruling on her appeal on June 19.

READ: In appeal of ouster, Sereno warns of 'far-reaching consequences' of SC ruling