The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on the appeal of ousted chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno of its decision to remove her as the top magistrate after finding her guilty of violating the Constitution for failing to file a complete set of financial disclosures.
“We will decide it [with finality] because we want to move on,” said acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio, adding that the 15-member bench was “functioning normally” following Sereno’s ouster.
“We have been deciding cases normally, we will be holding oral arguments normally. We are doing our work normally . . . because we are still 14 in the Supreme Court.
We have a quorum in all our cases,” Carpio said.
On May 11, the Court voted 8-6 to grant the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida seeking the ouster of Sereno for failing to comply with the submission of the 10-year Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, when she applied for the office of the chief justice in 2012.
Sereno recently asked the Court to reconsider, saying the decision to remove her by granting a quo warranto petition was illegal because as an impeachable official, she can only be removed through conviction in an impeachment trial before the Senate, acting as an impeachment court.
Sources said the tribunal would likely vote on Sereno’s motion at an en banc session on June 19.
“The Supreme Court decides and we just must follow. We are governed by the rule of the majority, that’s how our democracy works,” Carpio said.
“You win, you lose… Whether it’s correct or wrong, we just have to accept it because that’s how we can move on. We have to accept the ruling because that’s the decision of the majority,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals declared as illegal the attorney’s fees that Sereno earned as part of the government’s legal team in the arbitration case against the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. (Piatco), builder of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Terminal 3.
In its decision, the CA’s 11th Division, through Associate Justice Ramon Bato Jr., reinstated the ruling of the Mandaluyong City Regional Trial Court, Branch 213, which denied the government’s bid for enforcement of $6 million for the cost of arbitration proceedings before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) International Court f Arbitration.
The $6 million constituted 25 percent of government’s total arbitration cost of $24 million, which the ICC International Court of Arbitration ordered Piatco to pay.
Of the total payment of $6,009,351.66, Sereno got $324,674.37 or about P17 million, court records showed. The government deducted 15 percent, leaving Sereno with $275,973.21 or about P14.5 million.
Acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by Piatco, the appellate court agreed with the RTC ruling, saying “the arbitration costs and expenses were incurred in ‘violation of the Constitution, relevant statutes, and other rules governing government expenditures’ of public funds.”
The CA upheld the ruling of President Judge Carlos Valenzuela of Mandaluyong City RTC, Branch 213, that the arbitration costs and expenses were in violation of government’s “long-standing policy against the incurrence of irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant, or unconscionable expenditures or use of funds and property by the government.”
The appellate court stressed that Republic Act 9184, also known as the Government Procurement Reform Act, “undoubtedly applies to all the component costs listed by [government] as comprising its arbitration expenses.”
The CA said the government violated the fundamental public policy in the hiring of expert witnesses or consultants when the Office of the Solicitor General did not follow the provisions of RA 9184 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations in hiring Sereno and her co-counsels.
The OSG, in hiring Sereno and the other lawyers, should have secured “the concurrence of COA as required under COA Circular No. 98-002,” but did not.
“The RTC correctly refused the recognition and enforcement of the final award,” the appellate court said.
The $6-million cost, which was “five times more than that of Piatco,” include Sereno’s legal fees from 2003 to 2009, amounting to $275,973.21.
It also constituted 25 percent of government’s total arbitration cost of $24 million, which the ICC International Court of Arbitration ordered Piatco to pay.
A spokesman for Sereno’s camp said there was nothing illegal in the P17 million in attorney’s fees she received for her services in the case against Piatco.
“CJ Sereno is not a party to the case, which is between the government and Piatco,” said Jojo Lacanilao, one of Sereno’s spokespersons.
Lacanilao said Sereno should not be dragged into the case when she wasn’t even impleaded or charged.
The lawyer argued that the ousted chief justice only received the payment for her legal services “in good faith.”
“She was hired by government as lawyer and she accepted the engagement in good faith. She was one of the lawyers that helped the government win the case against Piatco,” he said.
On Friday, there was another sign that Sereno was out. Her name and photo were removed from the Supreme Court’s website.