THREE more Supreme Court officials, led by senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, are expected to testify in the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno conducted by the House of Representatives’ committee on justice, a House official said on Monday.
The committee chairperson, Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, said Carpio, Associate Justices Lucas Bersamin and Diosdado Peralta would be invited by his panel to attend the impeachment proceedings to provide their testimonies that would center on the rules and regulations and procedures of the SC in connection with the alleged culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust allegedly committed by Sereno.
“The impeachment team just met and we agreed to invite Justices Carpio, Bersamin and Peralta to testify in our hearings,” Umali said.
The House justice panel will resume its impeachment hearings when Congress resumes sessions on Jan. 15.
The committee also expected the presence of SC Associate Justices Samuel Martires, Mariano del Castillo and Andres Reyes Jr. to testify in the hearing.
From the Supreme Court, Sereno’s camp said it was expecting an intensified vilification campaign against her after efforts to pin her down on numerous charges failed during the several hearings conducted by the House of Representatives last year.
Sereno’s spokesperson Jojo Lacanilao stressed not a single impeachable offense was proven during the hearings, although four incumbent and retired Supreme Court justices had testified before the House committee on justice.
“We expect her detractors to intensify their smear campaign against the Chief Justice to cover up for the fatally defective impeachment case. It is our position that if there is a strong case against the Chief Justice, it should have long been elevated to the Senate for trial,” Lacanilao said.
The lawyer expressed optimism that not even the testimonies of the justices, which pertain to differences in opinion with respect to internal processes of the Supreme Court, were enough to prove that the Chief Justice committed an impeachable offense that would warrant her removal from office.
The presence of these six SC Associate Justices would bring to nine the incumbent magistrates who would be testifying in the impeachment process against Sereno.
SC Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Noel Tijam and Francis Jardeleza had testified against Sereno’s supposed failure to abide by internal procedures and consult the full court on various matters.
He said De Castro may return to his panel and continue with her testimony.
Retired SC Associate Justice Arturo Brion also appeared before the Umali panel.
Umali also said his panel also invited Court of Appeals Acting Presiding Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando.
Lacanilao also criticized Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez for making it appear that it was Sereno’s choice not to participate in the impeachment proceedings.
“We have to remember that the Chief Justice accepted the invitation of the committee to attend the hearings through her counsel, which is her right under their own rules and the Constitution, but the committee did not allow her to be represented by her counsels of choice and to cross examine the complainant and the witnesses through her lawyers,” Lacanilao stressed.
The Chief Justice respected the process by filing an 85-page answer and rejoinder without asking for an extension although the period given her was only 10 days, he said.
Lacanilao also noted that Sereno did not interpose any objection to the release of all documents.
“In fact, she informed the Supreme Court that the documents should be released. She also did not question or oppose the invitations to the Supreme Court for its employees to appear and testify,” he said.
“Unfortunately, while the Chief Justice respected the process, the committee ignored its own rules and violated her constitutionally guaranteed rights,” he added.
Lacanilao also said the report about the 10 justices testifying at the impeachment hearing was part of a “psywar campaign” to condition the mind of the public and make it appear that the Chief Justice was losing support among her colleagues in the high tribunal.
“Again, this is part and parcel of a propaganda designed to project that Chief Justice does not enjoy the support of her colleagues in the Supreme Court, which is actually not the case,” he said.
The lawyer also deplored insinuations these justices were testifying “against” the Chief Justice, when in fact, the testimonies of some of the justices might not even be against her.
“Given the possible nature of their testimonies, it is unfair to conclude that the justices who are invited to the coming hearings are testifying against the Chief Justice,” Lacanilao said.
