You don’t need to be a fan of Maria Lourdes Sereno to see that the ousting her as Chief Justice to a quo warranto petition goes against the constitution, according to Ako Bicol Rep. Alfredo Garbin.
Garbin, a member of the House majority who is backing Sereno’s impeachment, said the wording of the law is loud and clear.
Back in law school, all future lawyers were taught that the only way to remove a sitting justice is through impeachment, no ifs or buts about it.
But now the Supreme Court has seen fit to remove a colleague through a quo warranto petition, which is not in any way provided for in the constitution.
“When we were in Law School, we were taught that a Chief Justice can be removed only by impeachment, a process by which the House of Representatives brings charges against a constitutional official in the Senate, which tries the case and either convicts or absolves the officer.
Though I am of the belief that the Chief Justice must be impeach as reflected in my vote of endorsing the Articles of Impeachment. I believed that Quo warranto is not the proper remedy in removing an impeachable Official from office.
It is clear and the wordings of the constitution is exclusive
-section 2, Art 11 of the 1987 Constitution Provides:
-The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on IMPEACHMENT or for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
Nowhere in the said provision provides that impeachable officials can be remove from office thru a Quo Warranto proceedings,” he posted on Facebook.