​The curious case of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno

PHILIPPINES - In Brief 12 May 2018 by Romeo Bernardo

---

The Supreme Court voted 8-6 yesterday to remove its chief, Maria Lourdes Sereno, from office and to declare the position of the Chief Justice vacant.The granting of the quo warranto petition, essentially asking the high court to nullify CJ Sereno’s almost six-year old appointment as chief justice due, in this case, to incomplete filing of her statement of assets, liabilities and networth (SALN), is unprecedented. Under the Philippine Constitution, the only expressly allowed way to remove a sitting justice from office is by impeachment, a high hurdle done very publicly and only for a limited set of offenses.A successful impeachment requires a two-stage process of an 1/3 vote in the House of Representatives and a 2/3 vote in the Senate.The House of Representatives initiated the case against CJ Sereno last year, and is now at a stage where its justice committee has endorsed the impeachment for plenary approval and thence, trial by the Senate. The Supreme Court’s vote makes the impeachment case moot and academic. Opinions are mixed. There are those who think that CJ Sereno’s removal has been a foregone conclusion and “life will go on,” considering that it was her own peers who voted against her and tracing her problems to the way she was appointed in the first instance.[1] In contrast, the mood among staunch believers of the rule of law is rather grim, warning of the corrosive effects on the country’s democratic institutions as the quo warranto gains prominence as a short cut route for removing impeachable officials from office. While they say that the effects of the decision will be “subtle” and unlikely to be disruptive in the short term, one political analyst argues tha...