[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’SC rejects 1 of 2 pleas to unseat chief justice’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’18’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=” av-medium-font-size-title=” av-small-font-size-title=” av-mini-font-size-title=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
BY ADRIAN STEWART CO
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=’18’ font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
Sereno told to comment on Calida petition
MANILA – The Supreme Court rejected on Tuesday a petition that sought to invalidate the appointment of Maria Lourdes Sereno as Supreme Court chief justice.
The petition filed by Atty. Oliver Lozano did not cite what requirements Sereno failed to comply with and instead invoked the high court’s “inherent and plenary powers” in seeking her ouster “motu proprio,” or on its own, high court spokesperson Theodore Te.
“Lozano’s petition was not a quo warranto,” Te said. “While the petition claimed that the chief justice did not comply with mandatory legal requirements for the position, it did not cite the requirements (Sereno) failed to comply with.”
In his petition Lozano said the high court should nullify Sereno’s appointment since the impeachment hearing at the House of Representatives “caused deep division and dissension in the Bench and Bar.”
“We respectfully pray that the honorable court en banc, motu proprio, declare void the appointment of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno accordingly in the paramount interest of public welfare,” Lozano said.
Meanwhile the Supreme Court ordered Sereno to respond to the petition for quo warranto filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida seeking to void her appointment.
Calida alleged that Sereno was “unlawfully holding” her post due to her supposed failure to fully disclose her wealth.
“The court, without giving due course to the petition, requires the respondent to submit her comment on the petition for quo warranto within a period of 10 days from receipt of notice,” Te said.
Te noted that Associate Justice Marvic Leonen was against the solicitor general’s petition and believed it should be “dismissed outright.”
HOUSE VOTE MAY MOVE
Earlier in the day House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez said they plan to reschedule to May the voting on the probable cause in the impeachment complaint against Sereno.
Alvarez said they want to wait for the Supreme Court’s decision on the quo warranto petition filed by Calida.
“Pwede hintayin, pwede. Kaya lang nagmamadali si Sereno kasi sabi niya umpisahan na natin. Sabi ko nga, mag-enjoy muna sa bakasyon,” he said.
“Kapag halimbawa na-grant iyong quo warranto, in-invalidate iyong appointment, ano i-impeach namin? Wala na,” he said.
Majority Leader Rodolfo Farinas believes the House should wait if there is a “serious challenge on the legitimacy of the officer in question.”
“That (petition) will be resolved in a month’s time. ’Di naman magtatagal iyan,” said the chairman of the Committee on Rules./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
