De Castro testifies, questions Sereno’s actions
SUPREME COURT (SC) Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardode Castro on Wednesday testified before the House committee on justice hearing the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno
In the course of her testimony, Ms. De Castro downplayed reports that she gave Ms. Sereno a tongue-lashing after the Chief Justice supposedly altered the ruling in a temporary restraining order (TRO) that Ms. De Castro drafted.
The associate justice said the reports were “exaggerated,” explaining that she might have said what was on her mind in an “emphatic” manner during deliberations of the Supreme Court en banc, “but after the en banc, we eat together. Hindi po kami nag-aaway ( We are not fighting).”
Lorenzo G. Gadon, the lawyer seeking Ms. Sereno’s impeachment, had alleged that she committed culpable violation of the Constitution by tampering with a TRO of the SC in G.R. No. 20684445 (Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines v. COMELEC).
Asked by lawmakers, Ms. De Castro said the consolidated two cases involving the coalition – also known as the Senior Citizens’ Party-list — were raffled to her in May 2013, after the midterm elections that year.
‘TAKEN ABACK’
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) earlier issued a resolution disqualifying the partylist group, which nevertheless garnered enough votes to earn it a seat in the House of Representatives. Ms. De Castro said she thought it would be unfair to the party-list to be disqualified given the votes it received.
At the time, the high court was in recess. Ms. De Castro said she had prepared a synopsis explaining the case to Ms. Sereno, as well as a draft TRO where she “explicitly” recommended the issuance of a TRO to the Comelec to prevent it from implementing its resolution.
Given the urgency of the matter, she submitted her recommendation to Ms. Sereno’s office, which received it at the “first hour” in the morning of May 29, 2013. At the time, only 14 partylists were proclaimed winners by the Comelec.
Come afternoon, 53 partylists were already proclaimed, prompting Ms. De Castro to worry that the Senior Citizens’ Party-list might lose its seat.
Ms. De Castro said that by the time Ms. Sereno arrived at the office, it was already in the afternoon — a “very late” hour. She said she had followed up the matter with the Chief Justice’s office throughout the day, but Ms. Sereno allegedly did not even call her up to discuss it with her.
When the TRO was released by Ms. Sereno, Ms. De Castro said she was “taken aback” because it attributed to her the recommendation that the Comelec stop proclaiming all remaining party-lists. Ms. De Castro added that the Comelec resolution in question was not even referred to in the TRO.
She then wrote Ms. Sereno a letter to say that the TRO should only involve the Senior Citizens’ Party-list, as it was “very basic” that anyone who was not involved in a case should not be included in it.