Today News
A+ A A-

CJ doubts SC will be fair in quo warranto ruling

Is the end of her stint in the Supreme Court close at hand?
Chief Justice on leave Lourdes Sereno and her legal camp appear to realize that her days heading the High Court are numbered , with her legal team of spokesmen, now saying that Sereno doubts that the High Court will be fair in its ruling on the quo warranto plea.
Sereno’s spokeswoman Josalee Deinla yesterday expressed this doubt that her client will be judged fairly, because, Deinla stressed, some justices, who have testified during a House panel’s impeachment proceeding against the top magistrate, who were asked to inhibit by Sereno refused to recuse themselves.
During the oral arguments scheduled by the High Court last April 10, Sereno allowed her emotions to get the better of her, and worse, she, a respondent in the case, started attacking some of the associate justice, in which she made a sorry spectacle of herself, as she interrupted questions from the justices and showed her direspect for the justices and the Court which she leads.

Deinla was present in a forum that the “bias and prejudice” of certain SC associate justices could possibly reflect on their deliberation of the quo warranto case filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida against the Chief Justice on-leave.
“We are well aware of that. She (the chief justice) said some of her colleagues showed their bias and prejudice against her as they had testified against her (Sereno) either as witnesses or resource persons before the House committtee on justice,” Deinla stressed during the weekly Kapihan sa Manila Hotel.
“We have doubts over a fair judgment for her since these justices did not inhibit despite the respectful motions for inhibitions that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,” Deinla said.
Deinla added that Sereno’s camp is not afraid of the impeachment case since they are confident that truth will prevail during a full-blown impeachment trial at the Senate, even when, in an impeachment trial at the Senate, if it gets to this, the same justices will be made to testify.
But Sereno’s spokeswoman said: “This is what we have been calling for, for too long because a Senate trial, we can know the truth and we are confident that the truth will come out. The Chief Justice will also be given the chance to show her side,” she said, even when she had the chance to explain her side, as well as answer the questions posed by the justice to her, some of which she refused to answer, as well as refused to provide evidence to the court to buttress her claims under oath.
Solgen: Sereno failed
to file SALNs as UP professor
Solicitor General Calida on Monday reiterated that Chief Justice Sereno failed to file her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), when she was a law professor at the University of the Philippines.
“In her 20 years as a UP law professor, Sereno failed to file her SALN 11 times,” Calida said in a statement.
“If Sereno indeed filed her SALNs, why can’t she just produce them?” Calida asked.
Sereno earlier claimed that Calida’s confirmation that he obtained the SALNs himself proved that she indeed filed her SALNs, contrary to the latter’s claim in his quo warranto petition.
Not quite, however, since the SALNS have to be submitted on time.
But according to Sereno, this pronouncement of the Solicitor General is an admission that the quo warranto petition is baseless.
Apparently, the camp of Sereno is still into its misleading statements, as what is essential is that an applicant for the top post in the High Court requires that not only should the applicant provide the Judicial and Bar Council the applicant’s SALNs spanning 10 years but even more importantly, the SALNs must be submitted at the required time.
Lawyer Josalee Deinla, one of Sereno’s spokespersons, added that at least 11 of the 21 missing SALNs have been found by the Chief Justice prior to Solicitor General Jose Calida’s submission of the top magistrate’s SALNs to the Supreme Court on March 27, 2018.
Deinla said the fact that Calida himself confirmed that he had obtained the SALNs himself proved that the Chief Justice had indeed filed her UP SALNs contrary to solicitor general’s claim in his petition.
“SolGen Calida’s quo warranto petition was based on his claim that since CJ Sereno did not file UP SALNs and that she failed to meet the constitutional requirement of proven integrity when she failed to submit her UP SALNs to the Judicial and Bar Council ,” Deinla said in a statement.
Deinla cited Paragraph 23 of the petition where Calida “categorically and without qualification” stated that the Chief Justice “only filed SALNs for the years 1998, 2002 and 2006 during her tenure as law professor at the UP College of Law from 1986 up to 2006.
In its quo warranto petition, the OSG alleged, among others, that Sereno failed to file her SALN 11 times in her 209 years as a law professor.
According to Calida, there is no independent evidence showing that Sereno filed her SALNs for the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
Sereno not backing down
In a separate statement, Deinla said the top magistrate remains unfazed by the impeachment case and quo warranto petition against her.
“Chief Justice Sereno is determined to fight the impeachment case and the quo warranto petition filed against her with the Supreme Court. This means that all her efforts are focused on the issues at hand. Any insinuation about her supposed plan in the future is nothing but a distraction to sow intrigue and confuse the public,” Deinla said in a statement.
“Let’s keep our eyes on the ball and stay focused on the issues behind the coordinated attempts to oust the Chief Justice,” she added.
Sereno, currently on indefinite leave from office, has earlier sought the dismissal of the case, arguing that the SC has no jurisdiction and authority to remove her from office because the 1987 Constitution provides that she could only be ousted by impeachment in Congress as an impeachable official.
Citing Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution, she said impeachable officials — including herself and all justices of the SC — may only be removed from office upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court.
During the oral arguments on the quo warranto petition in Baguio City last April 10, Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio directed both parties to submit their respective memoranda and pertinent documents on or before April 20. 

Commentaries

Leila gets what she deserves

21-04-2018 Ninez Cacho-Olivares

Leila gets what she deserves

Detained Senator Leila de Lima no longer has any excuse...

Erdogan’s snap polls: bold gambit or che…

21-04-2018 AFP and Tribune Wires

Erdogan’s snap polls: bold gambit or checkmate?

Ankara, Turkey — With his stunning call for elections i...

Say goodbye to the SC seat, CJ

20-04-2018 Ninez Cacho-Olivares

Say goodbye to the SC seat, CJ

Even before the House of Representatives submit the Art...

Economic crisis forces slowdown at Venez…

20-04-2018 AFP and Tribune Wires

Economic crisis forces slowdown at Venezuela universities

Caracas, Venezuela — Teachers unable to pay the bus far...

Inhibit or resign? Quit or be ousted!

19-04-2018 Ninez Cacho-Olivares

Inhibit or resign? Quit or be ousted!

Justice Lourdes Sereno’s supporters must be very well-f...

Inflated CVs, dubious degrees: Spain in …

19-04-2018 AFP and Tribune Wires

Inflated CVs, dubious degrees: Spain in ‘mastergate’ scandal

Madrid, Spain — Inflated CVs, degrees that may or may n...

Headlines

Headlines

Nation

Metro

Sports

Life Style

Etcetera

Motoring

business

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