‘Reverse decision’: IBP questions Supreme Court’s treatment of Sereno case

MANILA – The Integrated Bar of the Philippines asked the Supreme Court to reverse its “narrowly drawn” and “necessarily void” decision to remove Maria Lourdes Sereno as chief justice, questioning how high court justices dealt with the accusations against their leader.

The decision “taints of political considerations and personal biases,” and its reversal is “critical for the preservation of the rule of law,” the IBP said in a motion for reconsideration filed Monday.

Before Sereno was unseated, the national organization of lawyers asked the high court in a petition to intervene in the quo warranto proceeding initiated by Solicitor General Jose Calida.

Calida questioned the validity of the appointment of Sereno, who was accused of not fully disclosing her wealth. The Supreme Court did not grant the IBP’s petition.

According to the IBP, the Supreme Court justices were wrong by making a factual determination of whether or not Sereno submitted her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) while she was in government service.

“In the instant case, the Honorable Court sidestepped this age-old rule and took on the role of a trial court, when it received evidence on the issue of respondents’ alleged non-submission of her SALNs and engaged in an in-depth evaluation of such evidence on record,” the IBP said.

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

The Supreme Court acted beyond its authority by determining that the erstwhile top judge must be removed from office, the IBP said.

“Any act of the high tribunal that preempts the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by a constitutional court is an utter excess of jurisdiction and therefore unconstitutional,” it said.

With the Senate vested with the power to try impeachment cases by the Constitution itself, “it behooves the Honorable Court to respect the Constitution’s grant of jurisdiction and refrain from exercising a power clearly bestowed by the Constitution on another Tribunal or otherwise frustrating the exercise of such power by the Constitutional Tribunal,” it added.

On May 11 Supreme Court justices voted 8-6 to remove Sereno, favoring the quo warranto case.

Sereno filed last week a motion for reconsideration seeking a reversal of the decision.

Associate justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam, Lucas Bersamin, and Samuel Martires should have inhibited from hearing the case for “actual bias,” she insisted.

They have made pronouncements against her at the House of Representatives during hearings on the impeachment complaint filed against her, Sereno said./PN

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here