Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
By Ralph Espiritu
Quo Warranto
A Quo Warranto is Under the Rules of Court is the proper remedy against public officers
in ousting from office. This remedy should be commenced within one year after such cause;
otherwise, the action will be barred. A petition for quo warranto under the Omnibus Election
Code requires that the quo warrant to be raised on grounds of disloyalty or ineligibility of the
winning candidate. It is a proceeding which is intended to unseat said elected candidate from
office. As of recent, the supreme Court have decided to oust Chief Justice Sereno from her
position through a quo warranto proceeding. This process holds a lot baffled and raising
questions of grave abuse of discretion as well as allegations that foul play may be involeved
therein.
Impeachment
Impeachment is also a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.
In addition, it has as its purpose which is to protect the people from official delinquencies or
malfeasances. It is primarily intended for the protection of the State, not for the punishment of
the offender. According to the 1987 constitution and recognized as an absolute rule to the
country or at least until the alleged ousting was that as a supreme court justice it is only through
an impeachment that they may be impeached. According to Section 2 Article 11 of the 1987
Constitution:
“The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from
office on impeachment 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.”
Among the impeachable officers are members of the supreme court on grounds of (1)
Culpable violation of the Constitution, (2) Treason, (3) Bribery, (4) Graft and corruption, (5) Other
high crimes, and (6) Betrayal of public trust. The acts which are impeachable grounds however
must be committed in the performance of the official’s public office. In addition to this restriction
“(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more
Other restriction includes that the impeachment proceeding must first go through the
House of Representative requiring at least 1/3 of its member’s approval for initiating and
subsequently, in order for a conviction, it requires 2/3 approval of the members of the Senate as
well the members of the Senate generally those who would preside over the trial. The several
balances. The basis for the several hindering processes requiring members of the Congress to
basically wholly approve of the action is in order that the impeachment action to not manipulated
for the sake of circumventing legal processes. Likewise, if the impeachment procedure is handled
by members of the same department then there can be an abuse in power in removing respected
colleague on account of a difference of opinion or principle although nothing unlawful to warrant
removal.
Due to the doctrine behind impeachment and also quo warranto, the decision of the
supreme Court in ousting CJ Sereno is violative of her rights in the constitution and regardless is
still a clear disregard of our Constitution and what it stands for. The Constitution is clear in that
in Article 11 however in undergoing the quo warranto and granting it holding CJ as ousted then
it blatantly disregards procedure of the Constitution which in itself is a culpable offense by the
The check and balance is one of the inviolable doctrine recognized by at least all persons
who have passed the bar in the Philippines. The check and balance requires that all department
of the government is separate however they are subject to certain reliefs in cases abuse such as
the judiciary’s power the assail public officers’ actions which was committed in grave abuse of
discretion, the Presidents power to veto powers of laws and the Congress impeachment power
provided in the Constitution. The check and balance serves as a means to keep the best interests
of its citizens.
Legislative Branch
The Constitution provides that the Legislative Branch has the powers to legislate, confirms or
reject Presidential appointments, and the authority to declare war. This branch includes Congress
(the Senate and House of Representatives) and smaller agencies providing support services to it.
Executive Department
According to the Constitution, the executive branch has for him the power to enforce laws and
regulations which were generally legislated by Congress. The branch comprises of the President,
Vice President, his Cabinet Members, executive departments (such as DAR, DA, DBM, DepEd,
DOE, DENR, DOF, DFA, DOH, DILG, DICT, DOJ, DOLE, DND, DPWH, DST, DSWD, DOT, DTI and
Judicial Department
The judicial branch under the constitution have the power to construct the laws, applying the
provisions of law in cases of dispute and controversies, and make alleviate said controversy, and
also order the inapplicability of the law given the circumstance are on account of its gross
inconsistency with the Constitution. The judicial branch is comprised of the Supreme Court, Court
of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Ombudsman, Regional Trial Courts, Barangay
Public Outcry
Although the Supreme Court are steadfast with their decision as mention, several public
outcries have already commenced rallying and raising voices over the said arbitration. In the
University of the Philippines Los Baños, an event called “WE DISSENT Mobilization for Judicial
Independence @UPLB” was organized calling for the ouster of President Rodrigo Duterte.
According to a spokesperson, aside from questioning the decision of the Supreme Court, the
protest was legitimately called for the ousting of the President. That the solicitor general as part
of the executive branch, in filing the quo warranto petition is a display of the President of its
powers usurping all three branches of government therefore leading to a defacto dictatorship.
In Congress, Minority senators are meeting and stand that only the Senate could remove
impeachable officials. Presently an opposition is being prepared by the senators. Upfront calling
“We are looking at the possibility of moving for a sense of the Senate resolution
reiterating our legal position that it is the Senate acting, as an impeachment court, who
Senators such as Pimentel and Drilon have reiterated to the public that the 1987
Constitution clearly states that the proper way to oust impeachable officer is through an
impeachment presided by the Senate and not through quo warranto petition.
Impartiality
Aside from members of the Congress, Prominent lawyers such as Christian Monsod which
was part of the 1986 Constitutional Commission expressed his disapproval in the decision and
that the reasoning by the petitioners were “a blatant exhibition of arrogance.” Atty Monsod
states that the constitutional provision distinguished between “impeachable officers” and “all
other public officers and employees” which may be removed from office as provided by law, but
not by impeachment.
Atty Monsod head the committee in drafting the provision on the accountability of public
officers including the provision on impeachment. He raised several points such as in removing CJ
Sereno, the Supreme Court ruled that a quo warranto case could still be filed by the state even
after a year from the cause of such action. The fact that the justice has refused to inhibit
themselves in deciding the issue is highly appalling and is raised by several members of society
The Impartiality was further brought to the courts attention by Sereno’s motions calling
for five justices she accused of bias and prejudice to be inhibited citing New Code of Judicial
“judges are required to disqualify themselves from a proceeding should they have
Former chief justice Reynato Puno have mention the importance of impartiality stating
that under Sec 1 Rule 137 of the Rules of Court provides that a party has the right to seek
inhibition of a judge who is not disinterested in the outcome of the case. A judge must maintain
its integrity as a public impartial arbitrator to keep with what the court has continued to stand
for. It’s as such a given right for an individual to seek a judge disqualified if the bias and prejudice
The Supreme Court however has also been hesitant and well aware of what entertaining
and furthermore granting the petition would entail. They state that:
“insinuations that the Justices of the Supreme Court are towing the line of
President Duterte in entertaining the quo warranto petition must be struck for being
unfounded and for sowing seeds of mistrust and discordance between the Court and the
public. The Members of the Court are beholden to no one, except to the sovereign Filipino
misrepresent that the Solicitor General who has supposedly met consistent litigation
success before the Supreme Court shall likewise automatically and positively be received
The Court remain steadfast that their decision was on grounds that the it found her
“ineligible" to hold the CJ Sereno post due to her failure “to file a substantial number of SALNs
and to submit the required SALNs to the JBC during her application for the position.” This is
consistent with the grounds that a quo warranto is warranted to protect the people from official
delinquencies or malfeasances. However, several of the Justices have expressed that this is a
violation of the constitution. According to dissenting justice Leonen, he states that the decisions
is "a legal abomination" while dissenting justice Caguioa state that the case is essentially a "
Senate Resolution
As of present, a resolution is being passed by the minority of the Senate expressing its
dissatisfaction of the SC resolution. The resolution as of present is being passed for signatures.
violating the rule of law and denying the Filipino people their right to hear the truth
However, it is unsure what Senate’s next course of action after acquiring sufficient
signatures. According to Senator Aquino, as citizens of the country, we should be active and
dissent the decision of the Supreme Court else it infringed on the “sacredness” of the
Constitution.
In my opinion, the proper course of action now is to seek assistance from international
tribunals. Human Rights Tribunals can take cognizance in cases when the justice system have
process and similar rights. Here the tribunal can judge and likewise rest the case on whether the
Supreme Court Justice acted outside their jurisdiction and should have voluntarily inhibited.
Through this both the public case rest their public outcry of impeaching the entire of the judiciary
as well as die down the wildfire rumors of President Duterte’s plans to have sole control of the
government as well as salvage the integrity of the court through having an indifferent tribunal
unaffected by local media and influential persons of the country render a decision.