Mr intervention final 2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT MANILA EN BANC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA, Petitioner, -

G.R. No. 237428

versus –

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO, Respondent.

x-----------------------------------------------------------x

BAYAN MUNA PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVE CARLOS ISAGANI ZARATE, ACT TEACHERS PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES ANTONIO TINIO AND FRANCISCA CASTRO, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY REPRESENTATIVES EMERENCIANA DE JESUS AND ARLENE BROSAS, ANAKPAWIS PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVE ARIEL CASILAO, AND KABATAAN PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVE SARAH JANE ELAGO, FRANCISCO A. ALCUAZ, BONIFACIO P. ILAGAN, COL. GEORGE A. RABUSA (RET.), RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, BISHOP BRODERICK S. PABILLO D.D., RENATO M. REYES JR., KAYE ANN LEGASPI, EPHRAIM B. CORTEZ, Intervenors.

x-----------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE RESOLUTION DATED APRIL 3, 2018 that:

Intervenors, through the undersigned counsel, respectfully state

2

1.

In its April 3, 2018 Resolution, this Honorable Court denied for lack of merit the Motion for Leave to File Motion to Intervene and Opposition-in-Intervention of herein applicants.

2.

A copy of the Resolution has not yet been received by Intervenors. However due to the fact that the present case is widely covered by the media and followed by the people, Intervenors are informed through news reports as to the denial of their motion.

3.

Hence, this Motion for Reconsideration.

GROUND FOR THE MOTION

INTERVENORS SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERVENTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 19 OF THE RULES OF COURT AND CASE LAW; HENCE THEY MUST BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS QUO WARRANTO PROCEEDING 4.

Intervenors herein are comprised of lawmakers and ordinary citizens and taxpayers. The issue involved in this case – the removal through a quo warranto proceeding of an impeachable public official – is of paramount and transcendental importance to this country and the Filipino people. It strikes at the very core of our concept of the Rule of Law. 5.

Thus, it is but proper and just for the people to be allowed participation in this very monumental and important proceeding the implications of which are far-reaching.

6.

The Intervenors possess the requisite standing to intervene in this case.

7.

Following Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, Intervenors have legal interest in the matter in litigation.

8.

This legal interest springs from the Intervenors’ principled claim that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, being an impeachable public official under the 1987 Constitution, can only be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

9.

This manner of removal is in contrast to other public officials not so enumerated in Section 2, Article XI of the 1987

3

Constitution, who could be removed from office as provided by law, as in a quo warranto proceeding.

10.

Thus, by virtue of the position that an impeachable public official is now being subject to a quo warranto proceeding, Intervenors’ standing or legal interest becomes clear.

11.

First, Intervenors as Members of House of Representatives, are being deprived of their collective right to bring the impeachment process in the lower house to its logical conclusion.

12.

As averred in the Opposition-in-Intervention, the impeachment process against herein Respondent Chief Justice Sereno already took its course. In fact, after several months of hearing, and after several witnesses appeared before the Committee on Justice, said Committee found probable cause to impeach the Chief Justice. The Articles of Impeachment was already drafted, and subject for voting by the House in accordance with Section 3, Article XI, which provides: “Section 3.

Xxx 2. xxx The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.

3. A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.

Xxx” 13.

A perusal of the submitted Articles of Impeachment would show that the averments in this quo warranto petition are the same as the contents of Article I, Sections A to D, of the Articles of Impeachment, which deals exclusively with the issue of the SALNs of Chief Justice Sereno. According to the Committee, said facts constitute Culpable Violation of the Constitution and Betrayal of Public Trust.

14.

Clearly, this present quo warranto petition is but a form of forum shopping intending to derail and hijack the ongoing impeachment process to the prejudice of all Intervenors.

4

15.

The prayer of this present quo warranto petition is the ouster or removal of Chief Justice Sereno from her post. As such, it could very well happen that this present proceeding overtakes the impeachment process in Congress. And should this Honorable Court decide in favor of the petitioner, the decision would render the impeachment process in Congress moot and academic.

16.

Clearly, such a scenario is to the prejudice of the legal rights of Intervenors, who as Members of Congress, have the collective and exclusive constitutional right to initiate all cases of impeachment.

17.

As such, Intervenors have a clear legal interest in the matter in litigation.

18.

Second, Intervenors as citizens and taxpayers, are very much a part of the politico-legal process that is the impeachment. They are the sovereign Filipino people who elected, and who is represented by, the Members of the House of Representatives. Their voices and sentiments form part of the decision-making process, and are the very standards by which each Members of Congress would cast their vote.

19.

Shifting the arena on the issue of ouster or removal of Chief Justice Sereno, from the impeachment process towards quo warranto process, deprives the citizens and taxpayers of their participation, since the resolution of the ouster or removal of Sereno will now be under the hands of our Justices, who are not elected public officials.

20.

The Intervenors’ interest in the matter of litigation is both actual and material. Their concern is more than mere curiosity, or academic or sentimental desire. It is not indirect and contingent, indirect and remote, conjectural, consequential or collateral.1 21. litigation.

Thus, Intervenors have a clear legal interest in the matter in

22.

Second, the present controversy involves issues of transcendental importance which the Supreme Court in many instances allowed for a relaxation of the rule on standing.

23.

The present petition seeks the ouster or removal of Chief Justice Sereno, an impeachable official, via the mechanism of a quo warranto proceeding. This process is contrary to what is provided for by the 1987 Constitution. As such, the controversy necessarily involves the resolution of a constitutional issue, one that has “transcendental Executive Secretary v. Northeast Freigh, as quoted in Ongco vs. Dalisay, G.R. No. 190810, July 18, 2012.

1

5

importance”, strikes at the very core of our rule of law, and has “farreaching implications.”

24.

In the case of Araullo vs. Aquino2, the Honorable Supreme Court stated that “the liberal approach of Aquino v. Commission on Elections has been adopted in several notable cases, permitting ordinary citizens, legislators, and civic organizations to bring their suits involving the constitutionality or validity of laws, regulations, and rulings.”

25.

The same liberal approach must be applied here and permit the participation of the Intervenors in this case.

26.

Third, the participation of Intervenors in this case will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. In fact, such participation would sharpen the presentation of the issues.

27.

Further, Intervenors’ rights may not be fully protected in a separate proceeding, considering that any favorable judgment of this Honorable Court on the petitioner would render the exercise of Intervenors’ rights ineffective.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, Intervenors respectfully pray of this Honorable Court to GRANT the Motion for Reconsideration and REVERSE its April 3, 2018 Resolution in so far as it denied the Motion to Intervene by herein Intervenors.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Quezon City for the City of Manila. April 9, 2018.

COUNSEL FOR INTERVENORS c/o BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS #20-C Malusog St., Brgy UP Village, Quezon City 1101

2

G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014.

6

MARIA CRISTINA YAMBOT IBP No. 021333- 1/5/18- Rizal PTR NO. 8809208A/1-11-18/Rizal Roll of Attorneys No. 59700 MCLE Compliance No. V – 0016653/04-04-16

MANEEKA ASISTOL SARZA IBP LR No. 011274 (12/17/2012) PTR No. 4750577C (6/8/17) Roll of Attorneys No. 57897 MCLE Compliance Number V-0022570 (1 July 2016)

MARY ANN M. BAYANG Roll No. 49292 IBP Lifetime No. 1062117/Baguio-Benguet Chapter PTR No. 3444924/01-09-18/Baguio City MCLE Compliance No. V-0022444 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION AND COPY FURNISHED: CLERK OF COURT, EN BANC Supreme Court Office of the Solicitor General Petitioner 134 Amorsolo St. Legaspi Village 1229 Makati City Atty. Alexander J. Poblador Counsel for Respondent 5th Floor SEDCCO I Building 120 Rada cor. Legaspi Streets Legaspi Village, Makati City Greetings! This Motion for Reconsideration is being submitted for the consideration of this Honorable Supreme Court immediately upon receipt hereof.

7

MANEEKA ASISTOL SARZA

EXPLANATION Due to the shortage of messengerial services and lack of time, copies of the foregoing are being served to the other parties by registered mail in accordance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court.

MANEEKA ASISTOL SARZA