I AM GLAD that in the midst of the quo warranto action against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the Supreme Court (SC) has found time to do something useful.
This was last week’s announcement that the SC found Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 41 to be unconstitutional and therefore voided.
DOJ 41 authorized the Secretary of Justice to issue “hold departure orders” on those wishing to travel. The example cited was when Justice secretary Leila de Lima ordered immigration officers to prevent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband from boarding an international flight on Nov. 15, 2011 to seek medical treatment abroad.
I was unrelaxed when, reportedly at the behest of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC), Sen. Sergio Osmeña caused immigration officials to prevent Maia Deguito from embarking on a family weekend trip to Tokyo Disneyland prior to her attendance at a Senate hearing. It is good that the SC has curtailed this bossiness.
The US Supreme Court has also been effective. In a case reported last week, it was the interpretation of existing legislation which was under question, whereas in the Philippine case there was no law, only DOJ high-handedness, which was under SC scrutiny.
US law requires the deportation of immigrants convicted of certain crimes of violence. The case at hand involving, as it happens, a Filipino immigrant, was whether burglary automatically counts as a violent crime. The Filipino, James Garcia Dimaya, had been legally staying in the US since 1992, but was convicted of burglary in 2007 and 2009. The burglaries did not involve violence. By a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court decided that Dimaya should not be deported.
When a Supreme Court judge is appointed in the US, the media love to label the appointee as either a conservative or a liberal. It does not always work out that way. A few years ago, several States assailed Obamacare in the SC but, again by a close 5-4 ruling, the SC ruled in favor of the Obamacare legislation. The swing vote was held by “conservative” John Roberts who might have been expected to vote the other way. If he had, millions of Americans would not have been able to afford health care.
***
The quo warranto case against Sereno seems to be making rapid progress. It has been suggested that there will be a vote on the case on May 17.
There are 21 people who can be removed from office by impeachment. These are the President, Vice President, Ombudsman, Commissioners on Audit, Appointments, Elections and the 15 Supreme Court judges.
Culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust are the two most likely reasons why impeachment trials may be decided by Senate. Would Sereno be found guilty by either of these criteria if her case ever reached Senate?
I wouldn’t bet on it.
President Duterte is due to step down on June 30, 2022. There is no guarantee as to the views of his successor.
If Sereno were to be fired because of the existing quo warranto petition, would it be possible for the entire SC to be impeached in 2022 due to its prima facie culpable violation of the Constitution?
This would, surely, be a possibility since the constitutionality of the quo warranto case can be assailed.
Food for thought!/PN
