SC allows justices to testify
House will never compel Chief Justice Sereno to appear in impeachment hearing – Alvarez
The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday allowed its justices and court officials to appear and testify before the House Committee on Justice, which is hearing the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno.
Those invited by the Justice committee were Associate Justices Teresita J. Leonardo de Castro and Noel G. Tijam, and Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez, Clerk of Court Felipe Anama, Spokesman Theodore O. Te, and chief judicial staff officer Charlotte Labayani. Also invited was retired Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion.
The SC decision was handed down on the same day that Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez declared that the House of Representatives will never compel the Chief Justice Sereno to appear during the impeachment hearings, thus, putting an end to speculations of a constitutional crisis on the issue.
In a ruling handed down after its full court session, the SC said that “as far as the invitation is for testimony on administrative matters, any official of the Supreme Court who is invited may appear and give testimony if he/she so wishes.”
But it said that “as far as the invitation is for testimony on adjudication, only Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo De Castro is authorized to testify.”
Justice De Castro’s testimony is limited on three issues, namely:
1. “In relation to G.R. No. 20684445 (Coalition of Association of Senior Citizens in the Philippines Party List v. Commission on Elections), only on the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order in these consolidated cases and the exchange of communications between herself and the Chief Justice, but not on the deliberations of the Court that led to the issuance thereof.
2. “In relation to G.R. No. 224302 (Hon. Philip Aguinaldo, et al. v. President Benigno S. Aquino III), only on the merits of her ponencia, but not on the deliberations of the Court in this case.
3. “In relation to G.R. No. 23181 (Francis H. Jardeleza v. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, et al.), only on the merits of her separate concurring opinion, but not on the deliberations of the Court in this case.”
Among other alleged impeachable charges, Sereno was accused of not declaring her earnings as a private lawyer before her appointment to the SC.
She was also charged with culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.
Last August, the SC allowed the release of court records and documents needed by two groups which sought Sereno’s impeachment.
Official copies of the court records and documents were sought by the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) and the Vanguard of the Philippine Constitution, Inc. (VPCI).
Sought by the two groups, in their letter to the SC, were copies of the following documents:
1. En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 12-11-9-SC supposedly adopted on November 27, 2012.
2. Subsequent En Banc Resolution recalling the aforementioned resolution.
3. Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes P. A. Sereno’s memorandum on the appointment of Atty. Solomon F. Lumba as Chief Justice Staff Head II.
4. Honorable Senior Justice Antonio Carpio’s letter on the withdrawal of his signature in the appointment of Atty. Solomon F. Lumba as Chief Justice Staff Head II.
5. Memorandum to the Court en banc dated December, 2012 of Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, seeking the recall of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno’s administrative order creating the new Judiciary Decentralized Office (JDO) and re-opening the Regional Court Administration Office (RCAO) in Region VII.
6. En banc resolution creating the Needs Assessment Committee to determine the need to decentralize the functions of the Supreme Court in support of its power of administrative supervision over lower courts.
7. Memorandum to the Court en banc dated July 10, 2017, of Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro calling for a review of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno’s administrative orders re “Appointment of Atty. Brenda Jay Mendoza in June, 2016 as chief of the Philippine Mediation Center under the Philippine Judicial Academy”; “frequent foreign travels and grant of allowance to Atty. Maria Lourdes Oliveros and other OCJ staff purportedly with funding support from the host organizers of the travel as approved by the Chief Justice and two Division chairpersons”; and “delays in filling up the posts of Supreme Court deputy clerk of court, chief attorney, and two positions for assistant court administrator”, which were supposedly issued without the approval of the Court en banc.
Te said that the High Court “granted the release of items 1 to 6 in the letter. Item No. 7, referring to the Memorandum dated July 10, 2017, remains a matter that is being internally deliberated by the Court and, thus, cannot be released until the matter is resolved by the Court en banc.” Constitutional crisis averted Meanwhile, Alvarez said the impeachment rules do not give the Lower House or the House Committee on Justice the authority to compel Sereno’s appearance in any stage of the impeachment proceedings.
Speculations of a constitutional crisis on the controversy surfaced after Mindoro Oriental Rep. Reynaldo Umali told a radio interview that they might be constrained to have Sereno arrested in the event that she will not honor a subpoena issued by the Lower House.
Umali later admitted that he may have been misunderstood as he aired the possibility of such scenario in response to a hypothetical question about what the Lower House is empowered to do in case Sereno would ignore summonses for her appearance in a committee hearing.
The Justice panel chairman reportedly failed to elaborate on his response that many officials reacted swiftly by airing the possibility of a collision between the Lower House and the High Tribunal on a scenario whose possibility of becoming a reality is probably nil.
Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon and Sen. Francis Escudero raised concerns of a constitutional crisis that may ensue following Umali’s statement.
Alvarez clarified there is no chance that a constitutional crisis will take place because Sereno will never be forced to show up to defend herself or cross examine witnesses against her.
In fact, the Chief Justice had already advised the Justice panel that she has authorized her lawyers as her representatives in the ongoing hearing wherein the justice panel will determine probable cause of the impeachment case.
In a vote on Sereno’s motion, the Justice panel rejected her plea to allow her legal counsels to participate in the hearings and cross examine witnesses.
Alvarez said Majority Leader and Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas is correct in claiming that there is nothing in the impeachment rules that would compel impeachment respondents to personally appear before the Justice panel.
“I subscribe to the opinion of the majority leader,” said Alvarez.
He said that if the Committee on Justice finds enough evidence to warrant a trial, it will endorse it to the Senate impeachment court.