The majority of the Supreme Court committed hara kiri with its bludgeoning the independence of the judiciary and desecrating the sanctity of the Constitution by ousting Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in an improvident quo warranto proceeding.

The close 8-6 vote deserves a very serious review of the decision in a motion for reconsideration.

Six (6) of the eight (8) justices who voted to oust Sereno refused to inhibit themselves despite their being biased against Sereno by testifying against her in the hearing of the impeachment complaint by the House Committee on Justice.

Four (4) of the eight (8) justices are appointees of President Rodrigo Duterte who has publicly and actively sought the removal of Sereno.

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to remove the Chief Justice in a quo warranto action because the Constitution mandates that an impeachable official, like the Chief Magistrate, can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate as the impeachment court.

Moreover, the quo warranto petition has expired almost six (6) years ago after President Bengino Aquino appointed Chief Justice Sereno on 24 August 2012 and she assumed the following day, 25 August 2012.

The Rules of Court provides that a quo warranto petition must be filed within one (1) year after the cause of action arose, which in this case was the appointment and/or assumption to office of Sereno.

Furthermore, the question on the incomplete submission of Sereno’s SALN when she was a UP Law professor is an non-issue because no less than the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) has waived its own requirement by including Sereno in the shortlist of nominees for appointment as Chief Justice.

It must also be underscored that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to void a presidential appointment based on the endorsement of the JBC, which is the constitutional body empowered to screen nominees for appointment in the judiciary.

EDCEL C. LAGMAN