Court of every resort

The Supreme Court is considered as the final and ultimate stage of legal determination and its decision is given great weight in matters involving the interpretation of the law.

In any legal matter brought to its attention it becomes the duty of the highest court of the land to give its own interpretation of what the law is and what it should be taking into consideration the spirit and intent of the law.

On the matter of the removal from office of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno by his colleagues in the Supreme Court, through the granting of a quo warranto petition brought by the top lawyer of the government, questions have arisen on whether the highest court of the land has made a grievous blunder. An error so serious that it is said to reverberate for years to come and put to question the reliability and integrity of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which is the very bedrock and foundation of all other laws in the country.

The question is quite simple really. Should the Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno be removed from office in a manner other than what the Constitution provides.

Under the Constitution it says in Section 2 of Article XI that, “The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.”

Very clearly in the said provision of the Constitution a distinction was made as to the manner of removal in office of public officers in that there are those that can only be removed through impeachment and those that can be removed as provided by law but not by impeachment.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is an impeachable officer and thus cannot just be removed from office by other means provided by law other than what is provided by the constitution, which is the method of impeachment.

This is a very clear cut provision of the Constitution which unfortunately was not followed by the Supreme Court in rendering its majority decision to unseat former Chief Justice Sereno through the granting of a quo warranto petition.

For five years from the time former Chief Justice Sereno was appointed on August 24, 2012 as the highest magistrate of the land she exercised complete authority and rendered her functions and duties as such and thus for all intents and purposes she sat in office as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

If indeed she is disqualified from holding such office or bereft of any right whatsoever to hold such office then the proper means, as provided by the Constitution, is to remove her through impeachment. But not, however, through a quo warranto petition since the question as to her right to claim such office was brought to light only after she had already assumed that office for a number of years.

Sadly the majority of the members of the Supreme Court saw it fit to come up with another interpretation of the law particularly in what is provided for in Section 2 Article XI of the Constitution.

The Highest Court of the land it seems, has not only become a court of last resort but also a court of every resort.

Sideglance

Amianan Balita Ngayon