NON-BENEFICIALITY

Contravening the letters of the Constitutions makes us not a government of laws but that of men. Your
honors, ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

The negative side would like to stress that as a Democratic country, non-adherence to the rule of law is
non-beneficial to us all.

First, it is non-beneficial to the members of the Supreme Court for them to be removed by means other
than impeachment as it will result to the undermining of the independence of the Judiciary, which is
tasked to uphold and protect the rights of the people. In the same vein, it is non-beneficial to the people
because they’re rights to life, liberty and property can be unduly interfered by the Government without
the benefit of Due Process of Law if we are to disregard the letters of the Constitution.

From these premise your excellencies lies the strength of the non-beneficiality of the Quo Warranto
Proceedings against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. Quo warranto under Rule 66 of the Rules of
Court is directed against a person who is alleged to have usurped, intruded, or unlawfully held or
exercised the Public Office. Solicitor General Calida in his petition for quo warranto against the chief
justice challenges the validity of the latter’s appointment because it is alleged that she lacked integrity
for non-submission of SALN. May I all invite your attention to Section 8 article VIII of the 1987
Constitution which empowers the Judicial and Bar Council in recommending appointees to the Judiciary.
In relation therefrom, Section 5 of Rule 4 of the Rules of the Judicial Bar Council only provided 3 grounds
which SHALL disqualify a nominee to the Judiciary on the basis of Integrity. These are First: pending
criminal or administrative cases, second: pending criminal cases in foreign court, third: conviction in a
criminal or administrative case. Your’ excellencies, nothing therein provides for the non-submission of
SALN. Pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 4 of the JBC, it empowers the latter to resort to other means of
proving the integrity of a nominee. Meaning, the JBC is free to adopt methods by which to determine
the INTEGRITY of a nominee. There is a PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY on the actions of the JBC ladies
and gentlemen. If they are accorded by the Constitution the power to determine who will be members
of the Judiciary, why challenge the appointees in a Quo Warranto Proceeding? Why not challenge the
actions of the JBC instead if we are to question the lack of INTEGRITY of the respondent?

This now led me to my second point. It is non-beneficial for the quo-warranto proceeding to proceed
considering that the Chief Justice complied with the Substantive Requirement of the Constitution as
regards qualification. She is a Natural born citizen, above 40 years old and engaged in the Practice of law
for more than 15 years. All of this SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENT had been satisfied. The determination of
the subjective requirement of competence, integrity, probity and independence was left by the
Constitution to the wisdom of the JBC. As such, it is improper to question the subjective qualifications
of the Chief Justice in quo warranto petition because for all intent and purposes, she is qualified to the
position because of his nomination by the JBC and appointment by the President Himself. If the Quo
Warranto petition will be held as proper, it is clearly a circumvention of the Constitution, as it
undermines the Power of the JBC to nominate and the Power of the President to Appoint. This is, to our
mind, will benefit NO ONE. Thus, the integrity argument of the petition has no leg to stand on. Besides,
IMPEACHMENT is the only way to remove a sitting member of the Supreme Court. DURA LED SED LEX,
adherence to the rule of law is paramount to the values of Democracy. Without such adherence,
anarchy instead of democracy will be the precedent of society.