Seven out of the eight Supreme Court Associate Justices who voted to oust former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in a controversial petition for quo warranto are now facing impeachment complaints before the House of Representatives.

The complaints were filed today by some members of the Magnificent 7 opposition bloc led by Rep. Edcel C. Lagman with the Office of the House Secretary General.

Charged with culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust are Justices Teresita de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Andres Reyes, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam, and Alexander Gesmundo.

Ombudsman Samuel Martires, who was one of the eight Justices who removed Sereno, was not included in the complaint because he is no longer an incumbent Associate Justice.

Joining Lagman as complainants are Akbayan Rep. Tomas Villarin, Magdalo Rep. Gary Alejano and Rep. Teddy Baguilat, Jr. of the Lone District of Ifugao.

The complainants said that the Supreme Court decision dated May 11, 2018 which ousted Sereno by granting the quo warranto petition “is not only errant, it is also malevolent. It is not only bereft of constitutional anchorage, it is also a blatant subterfuge, an orchestrated charade.”

The complainants asserted that the seven justices committed culpable violation of the Constitution because:

1. They are fully aware that impeachment is the only mode or process of removing impeachable officials, like the Chief Justice, which is buttressed by the wealth of relevant jurisprudence of no less than the High Court and the pertinent deliberations in the Constitutional Commission on the same issue.

2. A petition for quo warranto or any other mode of removal is anathema to the unequivocal mandate of the Constitution that the power to impeach is solely vested with the Congress.

3. In construing the word “may” as merely directory suggesting the availability of other options of ousting impeachable officers, the respondent justices violated the unmistakable context and intent of Section 2 in relation to Section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.

The aforesaid justices were also charged with culpable violation of the Constitution because they usurped the constitutional power of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to vet the qualifications of applications for positions in the judiciary and to nominate applicants to judicial positions to the exclusion of both the Executive and the Supreme Court.

The JBC qualified Sereno and included her in the shortlist of nominees for appointment as Chief Magistrate way back in August 2012.

De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Tijam and Jardeleza are also charged with betrayal of public trust for their refusal to inhibit themselves in the adjudication of the quo warranto petition despite their patent and continuing ill will, bias and prejudice against Sereno as shown by their respective testimonies before the House Committee on Justice and their statements during the oral arguments in the quo warranto petition.

The complainants also alleged that, “unethical ulterior motives induced Justices De Castro, Peralta and Bersamin to oust Sereno. With the removal of Sereno, a vacancy was created in the position of Chief Justice. These justices were expected to vie for said position as in fact they are.”

The impeachment complaints will frustrate the aspiration of the concerned Justices for nomination and/or appointment to the vacant position of Chief Justice because an impeachment complaint is akin to or even more serious than an administrative case whose pendency disqualifies applicants for position in the judiciary under the Revised Rules of the JBC.

The Rules of the JBC also require that applicants must be of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence consistent with Section 7 of Article VII of the Constitution. In the case of the aforesaid Justices applying for the vacant position of Chief Justice, they lack independence because they succumbed to the importuning of President Rodrigo Duterte who wanted the removal of Sereno whom he announced publicly as his enemy.

They also lack “fidelity to sound moral and ethical standards” as required by the JBC because they refused to recuse themselves from participating in the adjudication of the quo warranto petition despite their ill will and bias against Sereno.

EDCEL C. LAGMAN