Isang Dean sa San Beda School of Law binanatan ang mga kritikong tutol sa quo warranto propagandists!

Father Ranhilio Callagan Aquino, the Dean of San Beda Graduate School of Law has been brought to the brink, the man cannot withstand the spread of fallacies on the quo warranto that fake news initiators and propagandists call ‘unconstitutional’. The Dean of one of the best colleges of Law in the Philippines, stepped up on Facebook by posting the number of fallacies that he’s observed and heard of by negating each and every one and explaining why it’s wrong.

His disapproval of these four fallacies that he’s noticed are listed below:

“Fallacy No. 1:
Entertaining the petition for a writ of quo warranto against the Chief Justice is an affront to the Senate.

Refutation:
Article VIII of the Constitution vests the Supreme Court with jurisdiction over petitions for writs of quo warranto. The Court is therefore merely exercising its jurisdiction. And nowhere does Article VIII provide "except against the Chief Justice".

Fallacy No. 2:
An adverse judgment against the Chief Justice in the quo warranto case would be an attack on the judiciary and would set a bad precedent.

Refutation:
First, the Chief Justice IS NOT the judiciary. Second, then the JBC ought to do a better job and see that only truly qualified candidates are nominated.

Fallacy No. 3
The petition for quo warra[n]to is groundless and baseless and should be dismissed.
Advertisement
Refutation:
That is for the Court to decide. That is a matter sub judice and under the Rules of Court, such matters should not be publicly debated, much less should public opinion be fostered either for the grant of the petition or against it.

Fallacy No. 4
Quo warranto is an unconstitutional short cut. Impeachment is the only way to remove a Chief Justice.

Refutation:
Impeachment is ONE way of ousting impeachable officials. But when the appointments or elections of impeachable officials are assailed, the proper action is precisely quo warranto. What is provided for by the Constitution as a power of the Supreme Court cannot be unconstitutional.”

In all totality, the Dean’s corrections goes as

First of all, the Supreme Court has every right to exercise its jurisdiction on the Chief Justice, it is not an insult to the Senate. Second, the Chief Justice is not the Judiciary, thus attacking her through a quo warranto is not in anyway an attack on the Judiciary of the Philippines. Third, it is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the petition for quo warranto should be dismissed, it’s not up to the public to decide. And lastly, a quo warranto is but another way to remove a Chief Justice and not something unconstitutional, since it is a power of the Supreme Court that was bestowed by the Constitution itself.

With that being said, stating that all efforts to oust the Chief Justice through quo warranto is unconstitutional is likewise stating that the Constitution is unconstitutional!

Father Aquino then revealed that one uncontestable truth, the decision for the ousting of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is all up to the Supreme Court to decide.

Sponsor
So what can you say about this one? Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below, and don't forget to share this post to your family and friends online. And also, visit our website more often for more updates.

[SOURCE]-Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino


Disclaimer: Contributed articles does not reflect the view of FRESHNEWSTODAY. This website cannot guarantee the legitimacy of some of the information contributed to us. You may do additional research if you find some information doubtful. No part of this article maybe reproduced without permission from this website.

Loading...

No comments

Powered by Blogger.