The Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives, ignoring all rules of fair play and its own precedents, voted, 25-2 to proceed with the impeachment of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and ruled that all the charges against her were sufficient. Only Representatives Kaka Bag-ao and Kit Belmonte dissented.
Procedurally, the Committee did not comply with its own rules and practice. It should have tackled each charge and voted on each of them. This tells us that the process in the House could be a farce, with the proceedings railroaded against the Chief Justice.
If the Committee wanted to do this right, they would have considered the arguments contained in the answer submitted to the House Committee on Justice by Sereno’s counsel. The answer lays down the Chief Justice’s affirmative allegations and defenses, answering in a more detailed manner the charges for culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, high crimes and betrayal of public trust. I summarize her arguments below.
On the charge that she committed culpable violation of the Constitution, she interposes the following defenses:
According to Sereno, she could have not falsified any resolution, temporary restraining order or issuance of the Supreme Court for the reason that the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court provides that resolutions of the SC en banc are drafted based solely on the notes of the CJ as such she cannot possibly falsify her own notes. Even assuming that she may have taken notes poorly, this cannot be considered culpable violation of the Constitution.
She insists that she did not intentionally delay actions on the petitions for retirement and/or survivorship benefits. Decisions on these matters are arrived at by the SC as a collegial body. The CJ cannot act unilaterally on those petitions which pass through a technical working group and/or a special committee before the SC.
On the charge that she failed to disclose her assets and liabilities and net worth in her SALN, she states that this is not so to the contrary. She states that she earned 30 million from the Piatco case which she declared in her income tax returns for 2004 to 2009 and paid the corresponding taxes thereon. Part of these fees were spent over the period of five years and the remainder was declared in her SALN. Assuming that this charge is true, it does not amount to an impeachable offense as it pertains to supposed acts by the CJ prior to joining the Judiciary in 2010. The thesis by complainant that there should be an entry in her 2010 SALN corresponding to her entire fees. This would be correct only if the entire amount remained intact until 2010 which is not the case. Through the years, around P14.7 million of the PHP21.6 was spent. Her fee was not exorbitant. Her hourly rate was merely a fraction of that of her foreign counterparts.
In the matter of the nomination and subsequent appointment of then Solicitor Francis Jardeleza, she simply points out that the CJ is not the JBC which acts as a collegial body. She, as ex officio, Chairperson of the JBC, acted in accordance with the rules of the JBC when she voted to exclude Jardeleza from the shortlist of appointees to the SC. She is entitled to her own opinion on the qualification of an applicant to the SC. Further, she did not lie with respect to the recommendation of several associate justices who had come to her in confidence expressing their desire to do away with the practice of naming “recommendees” to the Supreme Court. Neither can she as CJ manipulate the JBC contrary to complainant’s allegation that she instigated horse trading within the body. Further, she points out that complainant does not even mention any part of the Constitution which she purportedly violated. The supposed violations attributer to her in fact largely pertain to differences in opinion with respect to the internal processes of collegial bodies.
Answering further the allegations, the CJ denies that she falsified any TRO in G.R. Nos. 206844-45 for the reason that she cannot possibly falsify a TRO under her own authority. This is in reaction to the allegation that she “deliberately tampered with and altered of the draft TRO sent by Justice de Castro by issuing a blanket TRO stopping the Comelec from making further proclamations, thus benefiting other groups that were not party to the case.” Neither did she falsify the SC’s resolution in A.M. No. 16-08-04-SC because a draft was duly circulated and adopted by the Court en banc and its final version did not contain a directive to the Executive Secretary to submit complaint-affidavits against the four judges within seven (7) days.” According to the Chief Justice, this allegation has a wrong premise because the Resolution did not “direct” but only “invited” the law enforcement authorities to submit complaints or other information against the four judges.
On the charge that Sereno did not want to take the Maute and similar cases out of Mindanao, despite the request by the Secretary of Justice that they be transferred to Taguig, she explains that it only took the SC 8 days to act on the initial request by the Justice Secretary. With respect to the Secretary’s letter of reconsideration, the same was discussed by the SC en banc barely 14 days which reconsideration was granted by the SC another 14 days later.
Moreover, she, according to the CJ, did not manipulate the shortlist of the JBC for the six (6) vacancies in the Sandiganbayan. The practice of clustering nominees is not expressly prohibited under the Constitution. Neither did she and the JBC cluster the nominees for the two vacancies as a result of the retirement of Associate Justices Reyes and Mendoza. Each vacancy had a separate and distinct set of applicants. In any case, these were judicial decisions.
Impeachment is an accountability mechanism for high level officials. The bodies assigned to exercise it on behalf of the people – the House for impeachment, the Senate for the trial – must also act in an accountable manner. The House Committee on Justice unfortunately has failed us. My hope is that the plenary of the House of Representatives will see the light and the Sereno impeachment will not have to go to the Senate where it will surely be dismissed.
Facebook: deantonylavs Twitter: tonylavs