Sereno appeals moved for the reversal of the Supreme Court (SC) majority decision removing her from office.
In a 205-page motion for reconsideration filed Wednesday afternoon, the unseated top judge said the decision of her colleagues to oust her was “null and void” since it violated her right to due process.
“This is basically a supplication to the Honorable Court to make the right decision and just,” said the prefatory articulation of her allure.
She emphasized that six of the SC judges she needed to restrain from the case must be precluded from choosing it because of “convincing grounds” that were “not fair.”
These are Associate Justice Teresita de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam, Lucas Bersamin and Samuel Martires.
On May 11, Sereno was booted out of the Office of the Chief Justice through a notable 8-6 vote by her kindred judges in the high council as it conceded Solicitor General Jose Calida’s appeal to for quo warranto.
READ MORE: BBL jumps second reading at Senate
Calida’s request of tested the legitimacy of Sereno’s arrangement to the nation’s most noteworthy legal post because of an asserted absence of respectability over as far as anyone knows missing resource revelations.
In her allure, Sereno said Calida’s request of depended on inquiries of truth that couldn’t have been “truly settled” without following the SC’s own method on gathering of proof.
“For this situation, the OSG (Office of the Solicitor General) did not by any means display any observer to demonstrate that Respondent neglected to record her SALNs while she was a teacher in U.P. (accepting arguendo this is even applicable in deciding her capability to be named as Chief Justice),” her allure expressed.
Refering to pre-May 11 statute and a few trades amid the consultations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Sereno additionally remained by her reliable contention: that she must be unseated by means of reprimand.
Decision of Impeachable officer
“The central mistake in the Decision is the decision that the Chief Justice, who is undeniably an impeachable officer, might be expelled from office other than by arraignment,” the movement said.
It similarly contended that “may” in Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution “does not mean an other option to indictment.”
In its historic point choice, the SC held that this same arrangement permitted the organization of a quo warranto activity against an impeachable officer.
Sereno is additionally confronting reprimand procedures at the House of Representatives, whose equity advisory group has affirmed the articles of denunciation against her.
An agreed vote from the whole would have prompted the charges’ transmittal to the Senate for trial.
Sereno blamed the OSG for “obstinate” and “consider” gathering shopping, which she said warrants the rejection of Calida’s appeal.
She likewise kept up she is a man of demonstrated honesty, as opposed to the specialist general’s claim.
The JBC never considered the recording fundamentally of SALNs (Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth) as a measure besides candidate’s uprightness. The SALNs were intended to be an instrument to reveal the candidate’s shrouded money resources, assuming any,” her arguing said.
The JBC screens candidates to legal posts and presents a waitlist to the President.
“More than its various lawful and verifiable blunders, the Decision demonstrates that in dispensing equity, a fair council is urgent and imperative. The Decision represents distinctively the desperate and sweeping outcomes of a disavowal of due process,” Sereno, through her legal counselors, fought.
Sereno advances ouster from Supreme Court
Meanwhile Sereno encouraged her associates at the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday to invert their decision that expelled her from office, and request her reestablishment to the best legal post.
Eight judges voted to remove Sereno to be specific, Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Samuel Martires, Andres Reyes, Jr., Alexander Gesmundo, and Noel Tijam, the creator of the 153-page milestone choice.
Hence Six contradicted to be specific, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco, Jr., Mariano Del Castillo, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic Leonen, and Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa.
The high court, in allowing the appeal to recorded by the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), discovered Sereno “blameworthy of unlawfully holding and practicing the Office
of the Chief Justice,” for inability to document Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net
Worth (SALNs) for a long time amid her 20-year stretch at the University of the Philippine
College of Law, and inability to submit to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) the
required 10-year SALNs upon her application for Chief Justice in July 2012.
movement for reexamination
Sereno’s legal counselors, drove by Justin Mendoza and Jayson Aguilar, documented her 205-page movement for reexamination at 4 pm, a hour prior to the end of available time and beating the May 30 due date under the standards, or 15 endless supply of notice. Her camp got the 153-page choice on May 15.
Sereno began her movement by belligerence that the six officers in the larger part ought to recuse from the case. She at that point continued to repeat her contention that she may just be expelled through arraignment procedures.
The choice is “invalid and void,” and made disregarding her entitlement to due process, she clarified.
“Furthermore, the proper activity, as managed by the respondent’s (Sereno’s) basic
appropriate to due process, is to exclude the six Honorable Justices who had lost the
unprejudiced nature to hear and choose this case; and to invert the choice of 11 May
2018, consequently reaffirming its adherence to the lead articulated in Section 2, Article
XI of the Constitution — as it was propose by the designers, comprehend by the
general population, and actualized reliably by this Honorable Court in its past choices
— that impeachable authorities like the Chief Justice can be expelled just by denunciation
, and not by some other means,” Sereno’s MR expressed.
to restrain from
Nevertheless officers she needs to restrain from the case are Associate Justices De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Jardeleza, Martires, and Tijam. These judges affirmed in her reprimand hearings at the House of Representatives Justice Committee.
“The preclusion of Associate Justices De Castro, Peralta, Jardeleza, Tijam, Bersamin, and
Martires is require, grounded on real inclination and not minor investment in the hearings
held by the House Committee on Justice,” Sereno said.
In its choice, the high court said it trashed Sereno’s hindrance request “missing solid and
convincing confirmation setting up genuine inclination and prejudice with respect to the
Justices whose recusal was look for.”
“Minor guesses and hypotheses can’t legitimize the restraint of a Judge or Justice from a legal issue,” the SC said.
Sereno contended that the high court ought to have worked out “legal restriction”
for her situation “to stay away from the likelihood of an established emergency.”
Besides in light of ongoing occasions, it isn’t theoretical that a protected emergency is likely, if not yet existing. This is prove by the Senate Resolution ‘consciously encouraging’ the Court
to survey its choice, depicting the concede of the quo warranto request of as a ‘risky
point of reference that transgresses the select forces of the authoritative branch to
start, attempt, and choose all instances of impeachment,’signed by fourteen representatives
from both the lion’s share and minority coalitions.”
She likewise repeated her before contention that the high court can’t abrogate the
demonstration of the JBC and the President, hence they focused on the issue of her respectability
is a “political inquiry” not subject to the SC’s audit.
Sereno advance contended that enabling the SC to decide the destiny
of individual judges “would open each to the weights of similarity at the danger of evacuation.”
She additionally called “incidental issues” issues refered to in the SC choice as “authenticating proof” in its finding of blame against her:
a) Sereno nevertheless purportedly had no allow from U.P. to take part in constrained routine
with regards to calling while in taxpayer driven organization, yet she was occupied
with private practice as appeared in her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) and conceded
in her Ad Cautelam Comment;
b) Sereno said that after her abdication from U.P. in 2006, she was lock in, full time, in private practice. In any case, in her PDS, it was express that she was lock in as insight by the legislature in the PIATCO cases from 1994 up to 2009;
c) Sereno’s PDS demonstrates that she was Deputy Commissioner of the Commission on Human Rights, just to be later repudiate by her amid the Oral Argument expressing that it was just a useful title; and
d) Sereno purportedly dedicate assessment extortion when she neglected to honestly announce her pay impose.
The high court is still in break, and will continue its en banc sessions on June 5.