Time for the Supreme Court to revisit Sereno case

The recent acquittal of former senator Leila de Lima in the third drug-related case against her is of tremendous significance in the administration of justice in the country. It is one of three cases that stand as an ignominious monument to the weaponization of the legal system by the Duterte administration to persecute its political enemies and promote a dubious populist agenda for the nation.

The other two cases are the revocation of the amnesty granted former senator Antonio Trillanes IV, and the ouster of former Supreme Court chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno. As events are now unfolding, we see a hopeful trend that we are, and should be, demolishing the evil structure erected by the last administration to terrorize citizens purportedly in the name of the law.

The first to unravel was Proclamation No. 572 which sought to revoke Trillanes’ amnesty granted by President Benigno Aquino III. In a Supreme Court decision on April 3, 2024, the amnesty was deemed valid, with Rodrigo Duterte’s Proclamation No. 572 revoked for being unconstitutional. The Court said the proclamation violated Trillanes’ right to due process and the prohibition against double jeopardy.

But the most unforgivable lapse, if not ignorance, on the part of then Solicitor General Jose Calida, the ruling hinted, was that Proclamation No. 572 did not have the concurrence of Congress, which the government’s legal counsel did not bother to get. Was this once again a cavalier attitude by the previous administration toward the fundamental norms of the rule of law? And when the Duterte officials resorted to the crude tactic of alleging that the records of the amnesty application could not be found—and therefore the amnesty was void— didn’t they even assume that Trillanes would have a duplicate of such record to prove its existence? It is well that this anomalous exercise of presidential power was voided by the Court.

The second case, the prosecution of De Lima, was so abhorrent that it triggered international condemnation from lawmakers and institutions of several countries, including the United States and the European Union. The filing of trumped-up drug trafficking charges against the former senator was nothing more than a malevolent act of political and personal vendetta, because she had investigated the extrajudicial killings that occurred in Davao City when Duterte was mayor. A drawn-out trial made sure that De Lima would be detained for almost seven years.

Now that she has been acquitted of all criminal charges, the apparatus of a weaponized justice system has been exposed in all its nefarious forms: the perjured and coerced witnesses, and the use of tainted testimonies from convicted felons serving jail time. One can only rue that this should not have been sanctioned in a civilized and democratic country.

The third major case, Sereno’s removal from office, was no less jarring in its implications on the rule of law. The copious rationale of the Supreme Court in its decision rendered on May 11, 2018, justifying the use of quo warranto to remove her, as opposed to the specific provision of the Constitution that a member of the Court “may be removed from office on impeachment” (Article XI, Section 2) remains inexplicable to this day, especially since the dissenting opinions of some members of the Court were so compelling. A noted Constitutionalist had also opined, in categorical terms, that “Supreme Court justices are removable only by impeachment” (Joaquin G. Bernas, “The 1987 Constitution A Reviewer Primer,” p. 400, Fourth Edition, 2002).

It is time for the current Supreme Court to revisit and review its decision on the Sereno case. While a proper petition to nullify and vacate its judgment for want of jurisdiction may have prescribed, this is not, and has not been (as seen in a few cases), a hindrance to the Court setting aside a rule of procedure to take up a case, in an extraordinary situation, to right a wrong and dispense justice.

The Sereno case is most deserving of that preferential treatment because the institution on the spotlight is the Court itself. Of course, only the former chief justice has legal standing to seek redress, but if she is wont to do so and the Court grants her some relief short of reinstatement which is unavailable, that would be vindication enough for her. If that should come to pass, the rule of law will reign unsullied once more in our time.

Ancheta K. Tan,

[email protected]