“Legal exhibition,” anyone?

When Mandaue was still in the process of being chartered as a city, we were required by our Political Science 10 professor, the late Atty. Alice Alburo, to submit a term paper on it. I remember being put on the spot because I dared to coin the phrase “negative acceleration” and made it the central theme of my paper. I opined that it should approximate the growth rate of the town in case it would later become Mandaue City. As a town aspiring to become a city, Mandaue was statistically more progressive than the other Cebu local government units. I theorized then that its acceleration as Mandaue, a new city, would not be as fast as it experienced in the late part of its being a town. But, it would perform better soon after it has adjusted to its city status. That’s why “negative acceleration.”

Today, I like to relive my literary derring-do. Let me coin the phrase “legal exhibition” to apply possibly to a probable action that may be taken by the Office of the Solicitor General on a senator of the republic. I am sure that the SolGen has a much better idea than this insignificant coinage. But, let me qualify the phrase by describing the word “exhibition” as a display of a particular skillful activity that people notice or admire. This early, when I say “legal”, I refer to a quo warranto.

Let us bring to memory the 2018 Quo Warranto case filed by then Solicitor General Jose Calida against former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. The opening line in the decision of the Supreme Court in Republic vs Sereno, G. R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018, had Justice Noel Gimenez Tijam, quoting Francis Bacon’s essay on Judicature “above all things, integrity is the Judge's portion and proper virtue." Sereno’s alleged lack of “proven integrity” was the core of Calida’s petition because, accordingly, she failed to submit several of her SALNs to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) during her tenure as a UP College of Law professor.

This quo warranto case was, to me, an unprecedented kind of “legal exhibition.” In our system there is the impeachment, not quo warranto, which is deeply rooted in the fundamental philosophy of constitutional accountability. Impeachment, not quo warranto, provides a legal mechanism for the public to remove high-ranking officials who abuse their authority and breach public trust. Indeed, impeachment, not quo warranto, is the constitutional process designed to ensure that even the most powerful leaders (such as presidents or chief justices) can be held answerable for their actions.

From where I sat though, I took the pronouncements of Calida that Sereno was targeted for dismissal (I could not find a better word) not for abuse her authority neither for her breach of public trust but for her alleged lack of “proven integrity.” I recalled that the former chief justice was one of the very few voices of independence occupying the very highest level of government who questioned on multiple occasions President Duterte’s assault on rule of law and his war on drugs. Did not Duterte, in a press briefing on April 9, 2018, address Sereno directly declaring her as his enemy? The president was quoted saying “I’m putting you on notice that i am your enemy and you have to be out of the Supreme Court.”

So Calida’s “legal exhibition” had a presidential blessing.

If quo warranto, as a legal exhibition, was a remedy grounded on “lack of proven integrity” available to remove a supreme court chief justice, it may well be, with more reason, available, as a remedy grounded on “lack of the natural born citizenship constitutional qualification” to remove a senator of the Philippines! For a start, the office of the SolGen should ask former Pateros Mayor Jose Capco Jr. and Filipino-American lawyer Rodel Rodis on the citizenship of Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano. Perhaps it can use the quo warranto “legal exhibition” of Calida.