The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) filed a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court (SC) on June 11, Monday, to overturn the High Court’s decision to oust Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.
“In other words, the Honorable Court not only assumed the role of a trial court, it even became an advocate and assisted the petitioner in discharging its burden of proof,” the IBP wrote in the motion.
“To be sure, this not only constitutes an overstepping of the bounds of the Honorable Court’s jurisdiction but likewise amounts to a derogation of respondent’s basic right to due process,” it added.
According to the IBP, the SC “failed to maintain the cold neutrality of an impartial judge when it engaged in its own evidence gathering expedition and sought to supplement the evidence already on record.”
The IBP, as the petitioner-in-intervention in the motion, also wrote that “it behooves the Honorable Court to reconsider its assailed decision and reverse its ruling that respondent is ineligible to hold the position of Chief Justice.”
The IBP also stressed in its motion that Sereno can only be removed from her position through impeachment.
“Guided by this basic principle, the Court will neither assume a power that belongs exclusively to the HRET (House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal) nor substitute its own judgment for that of the Tribunal,” the IBP cited the SC saying earlier.
“That the Supreme Court is to give deference to the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by other Tribunals, such as the Senate when sitting as an impeachment court, is likewise consistent with the essence of the Honorable Court as the Court of Last Resort by constitutional design,” it continued.
However, eight versus six magistrates from the SC voted to oust Sereno on May 11, which makes it the High Court’s first ever unseating of the country’s top magistrate. This decision granted the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida, not an impeachment complaint.
2 comments on “IBP files motion to overturn Sereno ouster”
The dye is already cast. The court has clearly spoken. The decision answers squarely all the speculations, doubts, and “what ifs” of those against the quo warranto. The decision sets the record straight as to who can file, when can be filed and where can be filed the quo warranto. There is no more issues to discussed. The supreme court is the final arbiter. Dura lex, sed lex. The law may be harst, but it is still the law. It must be followed and enforced, and those who are against it must seek a proper remedy by changing it. Lets move on for the good of our country. IBP is just politicking the issue…
Comments are closed.