MANILA, Philippines — The quo warranto petition which successfully sought the removal of Maria Lourdes Sereno as the country’s chief justice is nothing more than a “cheap trickery couched as some gaudy innovation” and should have been dismissed, Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa said.

In his strongly-worded dissenting opinion, Caguioa said that the case marked that time when the Supreme Court, through its vote to oust one of its members, committed suicide without honor.

The dissenting justice stressed that the Constitution was clear about the means to remove impeachable officers: through impeachment.

Saying that the case tested the integrity of the court, Caguioa said: “By ousting the Chief Justice through the expediency of holding that the Chief Justice failed this ‘test’ of integrity, it is actually the Court that fails.”

Caguioa said that the quo warranto petition described by Solicitor General Jose Calida as a novel way to remove impeachable officers was not taken often as it was not a “sanctioned road.”

“This case is nothing more than cheap trickery couched as some gaudy innovation. Thus, in disposing of this case, it does not take a lot of state plainly the truth; it takes infinitely more effort to hide and bury it.”

In an unprecedented ruling, the Supreme Court, voting 8-6, decided to grant the ouster petition filed by Calida seeking to remove Sereno supposedly for her failure to submit her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, a constitutional requirement for government workers.

Those who voted to oust Sereno were Associate Justices Noel Tijam, who wrote the decision, Teresita De Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Samuel Martires, Andres Reyes Jr. and Alexander Gesmundo.

Prior to the ruling, Sereno has asked six of these justices to inhibit from her case due to their bias against her.

Aside from Caguioa, Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Estela Bernabe, Presbitero Velasco Jr., Mariano Del Castillo and Marvic Leonen.

Caguioa maintained that members of the Court cannot and should not allow themselves to be used in ousting a sitting member upon the prodding of a “mere agency of a separate coordinate department,” a day he said he would view with “deep shame and regret.”

“No matter how dislikable a member of the Court is, the rules cannot be changed just to get rid of him, or her in this case,” he said, adding that issues with Sereno should have been dealt with internally.

He said that granting Calida’s quo warranto petition was at the expense and to the “extreme prejudice of the independence of the entire judiciary,” the independence of the justices and the freedom of discourse in the High Court.

He said that Calida basically looked for another forum to oust Sereno after realizing that the impeachment case against her was based on “shaky grounds.”

Caguioa also eviscerated the arguments by the majority opinion written by Associate Justice Noel Tijam.

He maintained that a quo warranto petition was not a mode of removal from office for impeachable officers as stated in the Constitution.

Assuming that it is available, he said, the non-submission or incomplete submission of SALNs to the JBS is not a valid ground to question the eligibility of Sereno as its submission is not a constitutional requirement for the post of chief justice.

Another reason for junking the petition is that the one-year prescriptive period for the filing of an ouster petition has already lapsed.

He added that records would also show that the Judicial and Bar Council, which screens applicants for judicial posts, considered Sereno’s submissions sufficient.

Finally, Caguioa said, Calida also failed to prove the non-filing of SALNs by Sereno as her other documents had been found.

Related video: