Today News
A+ A A-

No legal basis?

Some heads of legal groups, two of whom are the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) president and the head of the Philippine Association of Law Schools as well as the usual yellow critics, have come out openly to state that the Supreme Court (SC) en banc’s decision forcing Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno to take an indefinite leave has no legal basis, with another citing a dangerous precedent for a High Court to force her resignation or even force Sereno to take an indefinite leave of absence.
“I have no knowledge of any statutory basis where justices can ask any justice to take an indefinite leave. With all due respect, I think there is no basis because there is nothing in the internal rules of the Supreme Court that would allow a magistrate to go on indefinite leave,” adding that “This was the first time the chief justice was prevailed upon by other justices to take an indefinite leave,” the chair of the Law school association Soledad Mawis stressed in an ANC interview.
I am no lawyer, but as the SC—at least the majority of High Court justices—is, as the Constitution says, the sole interpreter of the law. Logically, whatever ruling the High Court says becomes law, right or wrong decision.
These legal experts must be asked: Was there a legal basis for the Davide SC to come up with doctrine of “constructive resignation” of then President Joseph Estrada who was not impeached or resigned? If the SC could “legally” and “constitutionally” oust a duly elected President of the Republic despite the fact that the constructive resignation doctrine has no legal basis, why then do these legal experts argue that forcing a chief justice to resign or take an indefinite leave of absence cannot be done in the absence of a legal basis?
If the SC can do this to a popularly elected president, why not when it comes to ousting the Chief Justice?
Sereno said there is no administration rule that exists on taking indefinite leaves.
If so, why then did she take an indefinite leave of absence on the say so of 13 Supreme Court Associate Justices?
There are also several quo warranto charges leveled against her, which have been lodged at the Office of the Solicitor-General, seeking Sereno’s ouster. This can be a case for the High Court to decide.
Frankly, no matter the view of the IBP president—apparently not the full IBP board members’ views—as well as the law dean of the law association’s view, along with any other legal experts won’t really matter, because in the end, it is always the majority decision of the High Court that counts.
CJ Sereno shortly after she started her indefinite leave claimed that no one can force her to resign and only the Senate can have her removed from her high post in the SC through a conviction by the Senate impeachment court as she dared the House of Representatives to immediately send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial because, as she claimed, she wants to let the people to hear her side as she she owes the people to hear her side of the charges.
It is pure dramatics from Sereno to talk about the importance of her side being heard, considering the fact that her legal and propaganda team had been issuing statements denying the charges despite testimonial and documentary proof, and to be frank, its statements in defense of Sereno were loaded with lies.
Legal experts insist that the SC cannot remove Sereno yet the SC has been known to sanction judges for some proven deficiencies or some administrative offense the judges committed.
If memory serves, the High Court threw out a judge who apparently was cuckoo.
If the High Court can and has sanctioned, suspended and even expelled erring judges, why then do these legal experts insist that the SC justices cannot force their chief justice to resign or take an indefinite leave?
It really all depends on the SC when it comes to impose penalties on its chief justice, especially as there is already proof that there was the element of fraud and manipulation to her inclusion in the list, and fraud was committed by both Sereno and the Judicial and Bar Council.
As the High Court justices said: The cleansing must start from within.


  • Codicks

    Quo warranto petition is more dangerous for CJ Sereno than the impeachment trial . Unlike in the impeachment trial where the senators will decide and the decisions of the non-yellow senators are still unknown, in the Quo warranto petition the associate justices of the Supreme court will decide almost all of them already expressed their dislike for Sereno, so, tbey will surely vote for her ouster.

    Codicks Monday, 05 March 2018 09:45 Comment Link
  • peter alagano

    Yes! the fake CJ should be removed by QUO WARRANTO ASAP ..!,,After all her appointment is void from the very beginning.Going into trial in the Senate is a waste of time and resources..SIRANA better RESIGN..Isa kang HUWAD na punong Mahistrado, kulang kulang ang pag iisip panay kabalustugan ang alam mo..

    peter alagano Monday, 05 March 2018 08:32 Comment Link
  • jesus nazario

    The 13 justices are doing something like Hercules' 5th (our of 12) labor - The Cleansing of the Aegean Stables. .The story goes this way in a nutshell:

    "For the fifth labor, Eurystheus ordered Hercules to clean up King Augeas' stables. Hercules knew this job would mean getting dirty and smelly, but sometimes even a hero has to do these things. Then Eurystheus made Hercules' task even harder: he had to clean up after the cattle of Augeas in a single day."

    So please honorable justices cleanse the SC of CJ's and her cohort justices' stables' dirty doings in "one opportune day" and be awesome heroes of the Republic !

    jesus nazario Monday, 05 March 2018 06:54 Comment Link
  • jesus nazario

    But Sereno is NOT even a legitimate CJ. She was/is an impostor CJ ab initio. So what are these meddlers babbling about ?

    jesus nazario Monday, 05 March 2018 06:40 Comment Link
  • Golgol

    Yes, constructive resignation is in the opting it is legally feasible give 13 associate justices 2 weeks they need more public support to do this

    Golgol Monday, 05 March 2018 04:30 Comment Link
  • inocent

    What is the power of these groups who talks against decisions which they have no business of contradicting. Who are these groups and what were their stand when CJ Renato Corona was impeached? Did they do anything? If they did and nobody listened to them, it is therefore good for them just to keep silent because their complaints have no effect in the ongoing impeachment process or anything connected with the process.

    inocent Monday, 05 March 2018 01:54 Comment Link
  • Luzy Canilao

    Sereno must be ousted from within the high court immediately..She has become a huge nuisance and a big embarrassment to the Philippine judiciary and the legal profession.

    Luzy Canilao Sunday, 04 March 2018 22:50 Comment Link

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated.Basic HTML code is allowed.






Life Style




Unit 102, 1020 Bel-Air apartment, Roxas Blvd, Ermita, Manila Copyright 2000-2017 All rights reserved, The Daily Tribune Publishing Inc.