THE camp of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on Thursday asked the House of Representatives’ committee on justice to allow her legal team to cross-examine witnesses who would be presented against her during the impeachment trial.
In a three-page letter filed with the House justice committee, chaired by Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, Sereno’s lawyers Anzen Dy and Josalee Deinla asserted the Chief Justice’s constitutional right to confront witnesses against her.
The same right, they said, is also provided under the House’s rules of impeachment.
Dy said cross examination “is a very important tool in finding the truth.”
“This is not just for Sereno but for the committee to find out the truth,” he added.
Dy said the Sereno camp would invoke Section 6 of the House’s on impeachment proceedings.
“It is with respect to the conduct of hearings after the determination of sufficiency of grounds,” Dy said, noting that Sereno had filed her written answer to the impeachment complaint filed against her by lawyer Larry Gadon as mandated by the House justice committee.
“So we have already filed our verified answer. Based on pleadings, the honorable Committee on Justice will determine sufficiency of grounds. Assuming that they do not find sufficiency of grounds, they will and they can dismiss the complaint already,” Dy said.
“Assuming that they do find sufficiency of grounds, they may conduct and they can call for hearings. It is on those hearings that evidence will be presented. Thus, the House rules specifically provide that there will be direct and cross-examinations,” he said.
In the letter submitted to the committee, the Sereno camp cited Section 6 which provides that the Committee, “through the chairperson, may limit the period of examination and cross-examination.”
“It would make no sense to declare the Hon. Committee’s prerogative to impose reasonable time limits on direct and cross-examination questions, if these rights are not available in the first place,” the letter read.
The Chief Justice “has been more than cooperative throughout the process of her own impeachment… despite the perjurious nature of the complaint and the dubious method of obtaining documents,” the Sereno camp said.
“Despite the short amount of time, she complied and filed her answer, responding to all points and attaching all necessary documents,” it added.
“They [lawyers] will not be allowed to speak directly to do the cross examination. That is not allowed by the Rules of the House,” Umali said.
He said: “Only the resource person, in this particular case, the respondent [Sereno], in my own interpretation of our own rules, may be allowed to do that.”
Should the Sereno camp wish to cross-examine, Umali said, they may ask him being the chairman of the panel and the latter would do the asking of the witnesses.
“Anyway, she is a seasoned Justice, we may allow her to conduct cross-examination. In the same manner that we will allow Atty. Gadon, who is also a seasoned lawyer, to conduct his cross examination,” Umali stressed.
This developed as Gadon said he had no problem with Sereno’s wish that witnesses testifying against her would be allowed to be cross-examined by her camp.
“So long as it is allowed in the rules of impeachment of the House and is approved by the Committee on Justice, I do not have a problem with that. I am ready for cross examination,” Gadon said.
Gadon, in a 29-page verified reply to the verified answer of Sereno to the impeachment complaint, Sereno merely provided a defense that contained “more lies, more lies and more lies.”
Gadon said in his reply: “She must go soon. Either she resigns or is impeached and removed from office immediately.”
