Professors of Constitutional Law, Dante Gatmaytan and Tony La Viña both agree that in entertaining the a quo warranto petition against the Chief Justice has diminished the Supreme Court.

In a Q & A interview with Rappler’s Lian Buan, Professor Gatmaytan opined that the Solicitor General of the country should have known better than to file an unconstitutional a quo warranto case, and that “following law and jurisprudence” the Supreme Court Justices “should have dismissed it.”

The twenty-minute interview covered a range of questions dealing with: options open in case of an unfavorable decision to, the need for Congress to assert its function as an impeachment court to, the [un]wisdom of using the doctrine of pro hac vice.

For the full interview, go to: https://www.rappler.com/nation/202184-rappler-talk-dan-gatmaytan-sereno-scenarios

***

Professor La Viña provided “academic insights” on the same subject, in the Thought Leaders Opinion column of Rappler.

He held that “even if the Court states that their decision on the quo warranto does not create precedent, it will in fact radically overturn our constitutional system – not just of accountability, but also of constitutional interpretation.”

He too held that “Congress, through the impeachment process, is the proper body to decide to remove all impeachable officials” and that “the Supreme Court will reject this rule if it removes Sereno through the quo warranto procedure.”

The complete article may be accessed at: https://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/202080-supreme-court-chief-justice-sereno-options