THE House of Representatives’ committee on justice expects three more Supreme Court justices to attend the impeachment proceedings when the panel resumes deliberation next month.
Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, the panel chairperson, said his panel invited Justices Samuel Martires, Mariano del Castillo and Bienvenido Reyes to speak on the allegations against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno contained in the impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Larry Gadon.
Umali said Martires would speak on the delay of grant of benefits for retired SC workers, while Castillo would talk on the corruption issues; and Reyes on the ‘Ilocos 6’ row with CA justices.
Earlier, three incumbent SC justices Noel Tijam, Francis Jardeleza, and Teresita Leonardo De Castro, and retired justice Arturo Brion, testified in the proceedings of the committee.
In their testimony the four SC justices said Sereno had shown disrespect for the entire court and her colleagues and violated the collegial nature of the court through unilateral actions without the approval or contrary to the decision of the court en banc.
As far as Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez is concerned, the testimonies of the SC justices constitute betrayal of public trust.
But the camp of Sereno downplayed the testimonies of her colleagues in the Supreme Court before the impeachment proceedings against her in the House of Representatives.
Sereno’s spokesman Jojo Lacanilao described the allegations De Castro, Tijam, Jardeleza and Brion last Monday as “pure personal opinions” and were not grounds to impeach Sereno from office.
“Their testimonies reflected personal opinions of the justices on matters already decided by the Supreme Court. Their statements did not prove that the allegations against the Chief Justice were impeachable offenses,” Lacanilao said in a statement.
However, the lawyer admitted they found the testimonies as alarming because they appeared to be “misrepresentations” meant to mislead the general public and the Justice Committee hearing on the impeachment case.
“It is unfortunate that their [justices] perspectives were colored by their personal sentiments,” Lacanilao said.
The spokesman cited their testimonies on the issue involving the exclusion of Jardeleza in the Judicial and Bar Council shortlist when he was applying for a position in the SC.
“We do not see the point of raising these issues again. That’s all water under the bridge. Justice Jardeleza was appointed by President Aquino. The SC en banc resolved to grant Secretary Aguirre’s request,” he said.
In his testimony, Jardeleza accused Sereno of committing treason for divulging his confidential position on the Itu Aba, the largest feature in the disputed Spratly group of islands, in the arbitration case filed by the Philippines against China over the issue of the West Philippine Sea.
But Lacanilao explained that Jardeleza’s actions on the arbitration case became the subject of Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio’s testimony before the JBC and the Chief Justice’s decision to question Jardeleza’s integrity before the JBC, which was then deliberating on the nomination of Jardeleza and other candidates for the lone vacancy in the high court.
Lacanilao said it was absurd to accuse the Chief Justice of treason for doing her constitutional duty as ex-officio chairman of the JBC.
“The Chief Justice did not commit treason. What constitutes acts of treason are defined in the Revised Penal Code, and none of the actions of the Chief Justice, as alleged by Justice Jardeleza, fall under these acts. When Senior Justice Carpio brought to her attention the Itu Aba case, as member of the JBC, she was duty bound to raise the matter and she did,” he stressed.
Jardeleza was eventually included in the shortlist and appointed by President Aquino following an SC decision favoring his petition against the JBC.
With respect to the testimonies of the justices on the transfer of the Maute cases, Lacanilao said the facts of the case would contradict Tijam’s claims that the Chief Justice did not consult the en banc.
Lacanilao pointed out that Aguirre did not file a petition as he merely wrote a letter addressed to Sereno that was received last May 29.
“Notably, Justice Tijam affirmed that the Chief Justice was the member-in-charge of the Maute cases, contrary to Gadon’s perjurious claims. If the Chief Justice did not consult the en banc, then why did no one question the June 6 Resolution?” he asked.
He also noted that De Castro, as head of the Raffle Committee, signed the minutes of the committee where the Maute case was assigned to the Chief Justice.
“Why they would raise a settled matter to which they assented to reflects on the intentions behind their belated complaints,” Lacanilao said.
Sereno’s camp reiterated their belief that all the allegations in the impeachment complaint filed by Gadon had no basis and were not grounds for impeachment.
Apart from the four justices, the House panel earlier confirmed that more SC justices were set to testify when the hearings resume next month, including Associate Justices Mariano Del Castillo, and Samuel Martires.
Also on Wednesday, informed sources said Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio had also been invited by the House panel and was also expected to appear at the hearing.