Justices of the Supreme Court cannot be allowed to be supreme even in their arbitrariness and malevolence.

To let them escape scot-free is to condone injustice and oppression.

The supreme people must have a way of penalizing errant Justices to ensure that justice prevails and the integrity of the Supreme Court and the independence of the Judiciary are restored.

The only viable remedy and constitutional mode of holding justices accountable for their blunder is to remove them from office by impeachment.

The eight (8) Supreme Court Justices, namely Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Samuel Martires, Noel Tijam, Andres Reyes Jr. and Alexander Gesmundo, in an irregular and improvident quo warranto petition ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno by arrogating the constitutional jurisdiction of the Congress to impeach the Chief Magistrate.

The power grab was pursued and consummated by the eight Justices even as the House of Representatives was on the verge of deliberating and voting on the Articles of Impeachment submitted by the House Committee on Justice to the Committee on Rules.

The Constitution unequivocally mandates that it is only by impeachment instituted by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate can an impeachable official be removed from office.

Sections 2, 3(1) and 3(6) of Article XI pertinently provide:

“Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.”

----0----

“Section 3(1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.”

----0----

“Section (6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.”

These clear provisions of the Constitution were ripped apart by the eight justices, five of whom had aired their grievances and expressed their prejudice against Chief Justice Sereno by testifying for her impeachment in the hearings conducted by the House Committee on Justice.

The petition for quo warranto filed by the Solicitor General Jose Calida against the Chief Justice is a legal anomaly which should have been dismissed outright by the Supreme Court because:

1. The Chief Justice can only be removed through the impeachment process as ordained by the Constitution.

2. The filing of a quo warranto petition as provided for under Section 11 of Rule 66 of the Rules of Court is not imprescriptible. It must be filed within one year after the cause of action arose, which in this case is one year after Chief Justice Sereno was appointed on August 24, 2012 or one year after she assumed office on August 25, 2012, which in either case, the same has long lapsed.

3. The alleged insufficiency of the filing by the Chief Justice of her SALNs when she was a member of the faculty of the UP College of Law is now a non-issue because no less than the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which prescribed the administrative requirement, had waived its full compliance when the JBC included then candidate Sereno in the shortlist for appointment to the position of Chief Justice.

The eight Justices are liable for culpable violations of the Constitution because:

1. They arrogated the power and jurisdiction of the Congress to impeach the Chief Justice as provided for in the aforesaid Sections 2, 3(1) and 3(6) of Article XI of the Constitution; and

2. They repudiated the recommendation of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for the appointment by the President of Chief Justice Sereno which is the sole prerogative of the JBC under Section 8(5) of Article VIII of the Constitution which expressly provides that the JBC “shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary.”

The eight Justices are also culpable of betrayal of public trust because:

1. With respect to Justices De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Jardeleza and Tijam, they refused to inhibit themselves from participating in the deliberation and adjudication of the quo warranto petition against Sereno despite the fact that they have publicly expressed their bias against her when they testified for her impeachment before the House Committee on Justice;

2. Their partiality and bias are repugnant to the high standards of judicial impartiality and judiciousness which they themselves recently reiterated in dismissing Judge Winlove Dumayas of the Makati City Regional Trial Court when they ruled that judges and magistrates “must not only be impartial but also must appear to be impartial”; and

3. All of the eight Justices, despite their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution, subverted the fundamental law by utterly disregarding the clear provisions of the Constitution, thus abandoning the public trust reposed on them.

Never in the 117-year history of the Supreme Court has any of its decisions ignited such a widespread and collective condemnation from an aggrieved nation than the 8-6 decision ousting Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in an improvident and unwarranted quo warranto petition.

The oppressive and unjust decision stabbed deep into and stung the conscience of the Filipino people.

Ordinary citizens, legislators, lawyers, law deans and the clergy have actively denounced the inordinately unconstitutional verdict.

Verily, the grievously errant eight Justices must be impeached for culpable violation of the Constitution and patent betrayal of public trust, among other impeachable offenses.

Only a contrite and complete recantation by reconsidering their unlawful, controversial and unpopular decision can save the eight Justices from impeachment.