These are the arguments that lead to Sereno's ouster - The Daily Sentry

Thursday, May 10, 2018

These are the arguments that lead to Sereno's ouster

Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno | Photo CTTO
At long last, the controversial Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno has been finally out of the Supreme Court premises.

This, after the majority of the Supreme Court en banc decided to evict the long-time beleaguered Chief Justice.

Following the quo warranto petition filed against CJ Sereno who is a Noynoy Aquino appointee, the decision of her associate justices to remove her from her post prevailed in a vote of 8 over 6.

With 8 in favor of her predicted expulsion and 6 contradicting the said.
Photo CTTO
According to reports, the 8 votes against the ousted Chief Justice came from Associate Justices Noel Tijam, Teresita De Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Samuel Martires, Andres Reyes Jr., Diosdado Peraltaa and Alexander Gesmundo.

On the other hand, the dissenting votes came from Associate Justices Estela Bernabe, Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Presbitero Jose Velasco Jr., Mariano Del Castillo, Marvic Leonen, Antonio Carpio.

Meanwhile, in a Facebook post, Fr. Rannie Aquino, a supporter of Pres. Rodrigo Duterte, presented the fallacies that the camp of CJ Sereno peddled to us along with the arguments that opposed them which lead to this day, Sereno's ouster from the Supreme Court.

Check out the full Facebook post below:
Photo CTTO

It is unpardonable, at least for me, that people who know and who should know better lend themselves to the propagation of fallacy and misinformation.

Fallacy No. 1:
Entertaining the petition for a writ of quo warranto against the Chief Justice is an affront to the Senate.

Article VIII of the Constitution vests the Supreme Court with jurisdiction over petitions for writs of quo warranto. The Court is therefore merely exercising its jurisdiction. And nowhere does Article VIII provide "except against the Chief Justice".

Fallacy No. 2:
An adverse judgment against the Chief Justice in the quo warranto case would be an attack on the judiciary and would set a bad precedent.

First, the Chief Justice IS NOT the judiciary. Second, then the JBC ought to do a better job and see that only truly qualified candidates are nominated.

Fallacy No. 3
The petition for quo warrato is groundless and baseless and should be dismissed.
Pres. Rodrigo Duterte | Photo CTTO
That is for the Court to decide. That is a matter sub judice and under the Rules of Court, such matters should not be publicly debated, much less should public opinion be fostered either for the grant of the petition or against it.

Fallacy No. 4
Quo warranto is an unconstitutional short cut. Impeachment is the only way to remove a Chief Justice.
Photo CTTO
Impeachment is ONE way of ousting impeachable officials. But when the appointments or elections of impeachable officials are assailed, the proper action is precisely quo warranto. What is provided for by the Constitution as a power of the Supreme Court cannot be unconstitutional.

Should the petition prosper or not?

That is for NONE of us to decide except the Supreme Court, on the merits.