spot_img
27.6 C
Philippines
Friday, March 29, 2024

Sereno challenges quo warranto ouster

- Advertisement -

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, facing a disbarment complaint, said on Saturday the Supreme Court decision that granted the quo warranto petition leading to her ouster was marred by legal and factual errors and due process violations sufficient to warrant its reversal.”©”©

Sereno, in the 205-page motion for reconsideration she filed, argued the majority decision penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam and concurred in by seven other justices—six of whom she sought to be recused from the case due to what she described as their extreme bias and prejudice against her—reversed settled legal doctrines and principles, resulting in “inherent inconsistencies in the court’s conclusions of law and evaluation of evidence.”

“©”©“Basic, fundamental, and long-standing constitutional and legal rules and principles, and settled judicial precedents, were ignored, set aside, and reversed by the majority decision, to achieve one end—the disqualification and ouster of the Chief Justice,” Sereno said in her motion filed through her lawyers led by Alex Poblador.

“©”© “More than its numerous legal and factual errors, the Decision proves that in meting out justice, an impartial tribunal is crucial and indispensable. The Decision illustrates vividly the dire and far-reaching consequences of a denial of due process,” she added.”©”©”©

In a related development:

- Advertisement -

• Sereno’s ouster may not yet be the end of her personal battle, as disbarment looms large in the horizon for her, one of her lawyers said Saturday.

“Again, this is likely that it is in the realm of possibility and, of course, it is unfortunate…” lawyer Josa Deinla, one of Sereno’s spokespersons, told a forum in Quezon City on Saturday.

On Monday, Sereno’s camp asked for a 15-day extension on the submission of her compliance to the SC’s show cause order. 

On the day it ousted her by granting a quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida, the SC also gave Sereno 10 days from receipt of notice to explain why she should not be punished for “violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct for transgressing the sub judice rule and for casting aspersions and ill-motives to the members of the Supreme Court.”

In its decision, the SC through Tijam said Sereno might be held liable for disbarment for allegedly violating the sub judice rule by “repeatedly discussing the merits” of her case in a manner that could sway the tribunal’s vote and influence public opinion.

In her motion, Sereno questioned the manner in which Tijam handled the petition as member-in-charge, giving rise to the perception of prejudgment on his part.”©

“©She said the footnotes of Tijam’s 153-page ponencia would reveal that the decision was already being drafted as early as March 15, or four days before she even submitted her comment to the quo warranto petition in the afternoon of March 19.”©”©

Based on these footnotes, it appeared that the drafting of the decision had commenced, and certain websites and online articles, which were used in the ponencia, had already been “visited” on March 15 and March 19, the same date Sereno submitted her comment.”©”©

“These show that Respondent never had a chance from the start. Justice Tijam had condemned Respondent before he heard her,” Sereno lamented.”©”©

She also assailed Tijam for taking cognizance of several pieces of evidence which neither party in the quo warranto case had submitted.”©”©

As an example, Tijam mentioned in his ponencia about a finding that Sereno’s July 23, 2012 letter to the Judicial and Bar Council explaining why she only submitted her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth as SC magistrate, and not as University of the Philippines professor, was allegedly not deliberated upon by the council’s executive committee.”©”©

Such finding was not based on any evidence on record, but a footnote in the decision indicated it was based on a letter dated April 6, 2018 sent by JBC executive officer Atty. Annaliza Ty-Capacite to Tijam’s office, responding to his request made through a phone call.”©”©

Sereno questioned the propriety of Tijam making a phone call to a JBC official to inquire about a matter that was not presented as evidence by any of the parties in the quo warranto case, particularly the Office of the Solicitor General which filed the petition.”©”©

“That the ponente made or caused such a call to be made is not allowed and shows prejudice,” Sereno said. 

“If a judge who suggested to a party what evidence it should present was held to have ‘transgressed the boundaries of impartiality,’ with all the more reason should a Justice who motu proprio looked for and considered evidence which neither party submitted be held to have transgressed such bounds.”

“©”©Tijam is one of the six magistrates whose inhibitions were sought by Sereno due “to their actual bias, prejudice and animosity” towards her as shown in their testimonies in the impeachment hearings at the House of Representatives, their questions during the oral arguments on the quo warranto case, and their participation in the so-called “Red Monday” protest at the SC that called for the resignation of the Chief Justice.”©”©

The five others are Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza and Samuel Martires.”©”©

All six justices voted to grant the quo warranto petition, along with Associate Justices Andres Reyes Jr. and Alexander Gesmundo.”©”©

According to Sereno, the SC majority acted without jurisdiction and in gross violation of her right to due process when it considered “extraneous matters” or those that were not raised in the petition as corroborative evidence of her supposed lack of integrity.”©”©

Sereno took exception to the so-called “additional evidence of dishonesty” cited in the majority decision to support the conclusion that she lacked integrity to qualify as Chief Justice, including allegations that she had no permit from UP to engage in limited practice of profession while in government practice and that she committed tax fraud when she allegedly failed to truthfully declare her income.”©”©

“These additional issues ‘resolved’ by the majority were never raised by the OSG in its Petition and Reply. Neither were they included among the issues defined in the Amended Advisory for the oral arguments,” Sereno pointed out.

“©”©“More importantly, Respondent objected to the introduction of such issues during the Oral Argument and in her Supplement to her Memorandum Ad Cautelam. Accordingly, jurisdiction to try and decide such issues was never conferred upon this Honorable Court. Any judgment rendered thereon by this Honorable Court is therefore null and void.””©”©

Sereno said the majority also erred in considering the impeachment charges against her as “corroborative evidence” of her alleged lack of integrity, pointing out that these charges were not among the issues raised by the parties in their pleadings.

“©”©She noted the decision itself recognized that the SC had no jurisdiction over matters committed by an impeachable officer after assumption of office.”©”©

“By imposing upon the Respondent the penalty of removal from office partly on the basis of these acts, the Decision encroached upon the power of impeachment which rightly belongs to the Congress,” Sereno said.

“©”©The top magistrate also accused the majority of violating her constitutional right to be presumed innocent when it accorded evidentiary weight to the impeachment charges against her.”©”©

“To stress, these impeachment charges are mere allegations which are yet to be proven during an impeachment trial. It is basic that ‘mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof,’” Sereno said.”©”©”©

“With due respect, the majority ignored this basic precept when they took cognizance of the impeachment charges as ‘evidence’ of Respondent’s purported ‘disposition and propensity to commit dishonesty,’” she added. 

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles