May nagdadalawang-isip na: Sereno’s camp hopeful about delay in release of appeal ruling on ouster
After the Supreme Court (SC) held back from releasing its final ruling over the quo warranto petition, the camp of ousted chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno expressed optimism that high tribunal will overturn its earlier decision ousting her.
One of her spokespersons, lawyer Jojo Lcaniao, has observed that the SC did not release on Tuesday (June 5) its final ruling over the quo warranto case against Sereno even though news reports have come out that the tribunal will release its ruling that day.
“We are encouraged that the Justices have given themselves more time to appreciate the new arguments, facts and matters that make the reconsideration of the May 11 Decision compelling,” he said in a statement.
Sereno filed the motion for reconsideration seeking to overturn the May 11decision of the SC en banc which voted 8-6 to grant the quo warranto petition of Solicitor General Jose Calida which sought to void her 2012 appointment as chief justice for her failure to submit her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) which was one of the requirements set by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).
“Unless reconsidered, that Decision will wreak havoc on the basic premise of judicial decisions, which is fair play in an impartial tribunal, consistency with judicial precedents and as important, the preservation of the constitutional checks and balance,” Lacanilao stated.
“The constitutional design requires respect for the Senate’s exclusive power to remove impeachable officials and for the stability of the tenure of public officials by the ban on quo warranto after one year has set in,” he pointed out.
On the other hand, Lacanilao urged the SC magistrates not to allow their personal disagreement with Sereno blind their judgement over the quo warranto case.
“The country calls on the Justices to set aside personal animosity and rule only according to what is right,” he urged.
Lacanilao insisted that “judicial independence requires respect for the impeachment process to ensure independence even of justices from each other.”
“Accusers, especially if there is rivalry for a post, cannot be at the same time judges of the person sought to be removed,” he said.