Inclusive talks in Paris between France and Kanaky New Caledonia’s politicians have yielded outcomes, including a French-submitted document on its future.

The talks, held last week, aimed at resuming all-round dialogue over a possible future status for New Caledonia.

Since the end of 2021 and a series of three referendums on New Caledonia’s independence, talks had stalled.

• READ MORE: Other Kanaky New Caledonia reports

Paris has tried but failed to bring pro-French and pro-independence parties to the same table.

Instead, there were only “bilateral” talks, separately, between France and the pro-independence camp, and between Paris and the pro-France camp.

During the latest round of talks from September 4 to 8, all sides were present for the first time in almost two years.

French Home Affairs and Overseas Minister Gérald Darmanin put on the table a working document which, he said, albeit “ambitious”, remained open to modifications from all sides of New Caledonia’s political spectrum.

Sensitive topics
The document covers sensitive topics such as New Caledonia’s future right to self-determination, but also ways to build and strengthen the notion of a “New Caledonian citizenship”.

“I have been personally involved, I have travelled to New Caledonia four times over the past year . . . We have had a lot of exchanges and a climate of confidence has emerged,” Darmanin told the French newspaper Le Monde.

“There was goodwill from all sides … We have decided to put this project on the table because nobody was doing it,” he added.

The working document, Darmanin said, contained what he described as a “modernisation of New Caledonia’s institutions”, including changes to the areas of responsibilities both on New Caledonia’s government level, but also for its three provinces.

“The project also reaffirms that New Caledonia remains French, but retains a specific paragraph in the [French] Constitution, which means the 1998 Nouméa Accord will not be affected in terms of a New Caledonian citizenship within the French citizenship” he told Le Monde in the same weekend interview.

Another sensitive issue was New Caledonia’s electoral roll for local elections to be held next year.

For the past 25 years, as part of the autonomy Nouméa Accord signed in 1998, the list of eligible voters was “frozen” to only include residents who were born in New Caledonia or established there before 1998 (including their descendents).

Temporary measure
The measure was supposed to be temporary for the duration of the Accord, which is now deemed to have expired.

From France’s point of view, these special measures are no longer tenable and should be brought closer to a one-person, one-vote system before New Caledonia’s provincial elections are held in 2024.

On New Caledonia’s right to self-determination, Darmanin’s draft “no longer includes a date or a timeline to achieve it”, he said, adding this would remove the “Damocles sword” of a “binary question YES or NO to independence”.

Instead, any future project would be submitted “by New Caledonians themselves”, and should be endorsed by a minimum two-thirds of the local Congress.

The document is understood to serve as a basis for further discussions to be finalised by the end of 2023, Darmanin said, adding the final version would result in a French Constitutional amendment scheduled to be put to the necessary vote of the French Congress (both the Senate and the National Assembly).

He said if no agreement was reached by then, “we will amend the electoral roll in order to hold provincial elections [in 2024]. This is a democratic requirement”.

Darmanin said he would travel again to New Caledonia at the “end of October” to pursue talks with all parties.

‘Responsibility in face of history’
“[Last] week, pro-independence and anti-independence (politicians) have held meetings with me in the same room . . .  I am counting on those parties’ great sense of responsibility in the face of history,” he said.

French President Emmanuel Macron was in New Caledonia late July, when he announced plans for the Constitutional amendment and specific arrangements for New Caledonia sometime early 2024.

Last Friday, he met visiting New Caledonia politicians to mark the end of the week-long Paris talks.

“The President insisted on the need to reach an agreement in order to fully engage on the path of forgiveness and future,” Macron’s office said in a statement.

On the pro-French side, Sonia Backès — the pro-France President of New Caledonia’s Southern Province — said that “by October 11, we should have a document that lists all points of agreement and also those points of disagreement”.

“We have the feeling things are moving forward,” pro-independence FLNKS delegation member Victor Tutugoro told French public media television Outre-Mer la 1ère. “So we’re going to start working on this [document] and really open negotiations by the end of October,” he added.

All three referendums held between 2018 and 2021 have resulted in a majority of voters rejecting independence in New Caledonia.

Final steps required
France regards those results as one of the final steps required from the Nouméa Accord, signed 10 years after another deal, the Matignon-Oudinot Accord, was struck in 1988 to bring an end to half a decade of a bloody quasi-civil war.

But the FLNKS, the umbrella of pro-independence parties, is contesting the outcome of the third referendum held in late 2021, which was largely boycotted by the indigenous Kanak population, saying the covid restrictions and subsequent traditional mourning deterred many of the indigenous Kanaks from voting.

While pro-French parties have seen those three referendums results as evidence of the will for New Caledonia to remain French, the FLNKS is claiming it wants to bring the matter before the International Court of Justice.

It recently received in-principle support from the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) leaders who held their summit in Port Vila, Vanuatu in late August.

The MSG consists of Fiji, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and FLNKS as a non-state member.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

After the ousting of the Philippines’ Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the six justices who voted against the quo warranto petition have claimed the decision has made the Office of the Solicitor-General more powerful.

The justices raised their concern in their separate dissenting opinions following the Supreme Court’s 8-6 unprecedented and historic vote in favour of the petition – a prerogative warrant – on Friday.

Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo wrote in his dissenting opinion that the decision of the majority had granted the Solicitor-General (SolGen) powers to “remake the composition” of the High Court, “causing the removal of its members”.

READ MORE: Quo warranto v elected impeachable allowed, says Supreme Court

“With the SolGen wielding a quo warranto sword of Damocles over the heads of these officers, the Filipino people cannot be assured that they will discharge their constitutional mandate and functions without fear or favor,” said Del Castillo.

Without such assurance, there can be no guarantee that the primordial interest of the sovereign people is promoted.”

Del Castillo called the SolGen’s move a form of “constitutional adventurism”.

The quo warranto petition to remove Sereno from office was on the basis of an alleged invalid appointment.

The decision is “immediately executory without need for further action,” SC spokesperson Theodore Te said during Friday’s press briefing.

‘Violated requirements’
Nine of the justices said she violated requirements on the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN). The same number of justices ruled that quo warranto was the proper remedy in the ouster of Sereno.

This is the first time that the Supreme Court has removed its own chief, in a petition widely slammed for violating Sereno’s constitutional right to an impeachment process.

Sereno is the second chief justice to be removed from office after Renato Corona was ousted in 2012. He was found guilty of betraying the public trust and committing culpable violation of the Constitution.

Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo’s sentiment was echoed by the dissenting opinions of Associate Justices Marvic Leonen and Benjamin Caguioa.

Lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leaders Franklin Drilon, a former justice secretary, shared the same concern.

The others who voted against the petition are Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr, and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

Quo warranto or impeachment?
The six dissenters all agreed that impeachment was the only way to unseat an impeachable officer like Sereno.

Del Castillo stressed that allowing the quo warranto proceeding “impairs the independence of constitutional offices”.

Bernabe wrote in her opinion that the OSG should have questioned the discretion of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to include Sereno in the shortlist of chief justice applicants.

Bernabe pointed out that the OSG “voluntarily admitted that the JBC’s grave abuse of discretion is not at all an issue.”

In his dissenting opinion, Velasco relayed the same sentiment.

“There was no attempt to assail and contest much less nullify the JBC’s findings that the respondent possessed all qualifications, the JBC’s decision must stand,” Velasco said.

Yes to quo warranto but…
Velasco said that the “remedy of quo warranto is available to unseat, in the extreme, even an impeachable officer”.

However, he clarified that the one-year prescribed period for filing such a petition had lapsed. He said that Sereno’s nomination and appointment “has not been timely challenged, much less nullified,” and that “the findings and qualifications should be respected.”

Velasco insisted that the OSG had to file a petition for certiorari against the JBC before seeking Sereno’s removal from office.

Bernabe also said that impeachment was not the sole move of removing impeachable officials as it would be “clearly absurd for any of them to remain in office despite their failure to meet the minimum eligibility requirements”.

She said that there “should be a remedy to oust all our public officials, no matter how high-ranking they are, or how critical their functions may be,” but after clear “determination that they have not actually qualified for election or appointment”.

Bernabe stressed that the JBC’s rigorous process was lenient on the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) requirement. In fact, none of the applicants were able to submit all SALNs up to 2012.

Despite voting for the retention of Sereno, Bernabe said she made no claim that Sereno “is or is not a person of integrity.”

“In fact, if there is one thing that is glaringly apparent from these proceedings, it is actually the lack of respondent’s candor and forthrightness in the submission of her SALNs. Integrity must be threshed out in the appropriate case for certiorari,” Bernabe said.

• More Philippines stories