GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

Former Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno would not have been removed by the Supreme Court by way of Quo Warranto on THREE GROUNDS to wit: 1) Impeachable officials of the land like the President, Vice President, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, Ombudsman and Chairmen and Commissioners of the Independent constitutional bodies like the Commission on Elections, Commission on Audit and the Civil Service Commission can only be removed from their respective offices only BY WAY OF IMPEACHMENT; 2.) Granting arguendo that there are grounds for a Quo Warranto complaint against the former Chief Justice through Rule 66 of the Civil Procedure of the Philippines, yet under Section 11 of the same RULE, the proper complaint of Quo Warranto against the former Chief Justice should have been filed within one year within which the legal issues against her had stemmed; and 3.) The Quo Warranto complaint against the former Chief Justice would have been outrightly dismissed by the Supreme Court, since there is an earlier impeachment complaint filed against the Chief Justice, and filing two cases against her with almost the same causes of action tantamounts to FORUM SHOPPING which is not permitted by the law.

The provisions of the laws that I have invoked are very clear and because of these, the Quo Warranto complaint filed by the Solicitor General against the former Chief Justice would not have been given effect and legal credence by the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court themselves, the former subordinates of the former chief magistrate of the land.

We all know that many Associate Justices of the Supreme Court were overtaken by the former Chief Justice Sereno who also applied for the coveted post of Chief Justice when she applied for the same post. The same Associate Justices have an ax to grind with her for having been bypassed in her favor.

Many current Associate Justices of the Supreme Court have already testified against the former Chief Justice before the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives as regards to the impeachment complaint filed against her in such a forum. Witnessing against her in that legal venue and judging against her in the Supreme Court is clearly a mockery of justice. The said Associate Justices should have disqualified or inhibited themselves in trying the former Chief Justice in the Quo Warranto proceedings filed against her to show IMPARTIALITY, because like Ceasar's wife every magistrate or judge must always be above an iota of suspicion.

Taking the former Chief Justice Sereno out of her office not in consonance with the pertinent laws of the Republic in the matter of expelling a Chief Magistrate of the land and by depending more on hurt feelings and emotions tantamount to the commission of GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION on the part of the EIGHT (8) Associate Justices of the Supreme Court who ousted her from the helm of the Highest Tribunal of the land, purely and simply speaking.