The seven associate justices who unconstitutionally attempted to oust Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno must recuse themselves or inhibit from the adjudication of the quo warranto petition which is expected to be filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida questioning the validity of Sereno’s appointment.

Calida purposely chose to file the petition before the Supreme Court, which has become a hostile forum against Sereno, even as the one-year period within which to file the action has prescribed five years ago pursuant to Section 11 of Rule 66 of the Rules of Court.

Aside from the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General can file the petition in the Court of Appeals or even in a Regional Trial Court in the City of Manila.

Section 7 of Rule 66 pertinently provides: "when the Solicitor General commences the action, it may be brought in a Regional Trial Court in the City of Manila, in the Court of Appeals, or in the Supreme Court."

The appointment of Sereno complied with the basic requirements of the Constitution and no less than the Judicial and Bar Council endorsed her appointment to then President Benigno Aquino III.

An appointment enjoys the presumption of validity and a proffered argument that it is void ab initio is not favored.

After their conspiracy to unseat Sereno failed, the seven justices succeeded in compelling Sereno to file an indefinite leave, which has no constitutional or legal anchorage.

The quo warranto petition gives the subject seven justices the opportunity to pursue their scheme in removing the chief magistrate without waiting for the constitutional process of a Senate impeachment trial.

The quo warranto petition inveigles the Supreme Court to violate the Constitution by usurping the power of the House of Representatives to impeach the Chief Justice and the jurisdiction of the Senate to try and judge her.

EDCEL C. LAGMAN