Sereno ig­nored in­ter­nal rules


MANILA - CHIEF Jus­tice Maria Lour­des Sereno ig­nored the Supreme Court’s in­ter­nal rules when she acted on the mo­tion re­lated to the Maute cases, a Supreme Court per­son­nel said Wed­nes­day, De­cem­ber 6.

Supreme Court Clerk of Court Felipa Anama told the House com­mit­tee on jus­tice at the re­sump­tion of the hear­ing on the im­peach­ment com­plaint against the chief jus­tice that the re­quest of Jus­tice Sec­re­tary Vi­tal­iano Aguirre II for the Supreme Court to trans­fer the trial of the re­bel­lion cases filed against mem­bers of the ISISin­spired Maute group out­side Min­danao did not un­dergo raf­fle pro­ceed­ings.

Anama said the re­quest was in­cluded in the list of ad­min­is­tra­tive mat­ters to be raf­fled off on June 19, but the raf­fle com­mit­tee struck it down as it has al­ready been acted upon by the Chief Jus­tice on June 6, thereby as­sum­ing that she is the mem­ber in charge of the mat­ter.

“May raf­fle nung June 19. An­dun po ta­laga yun sa list kaya lang nung du­mat­ing sa case na yun, dahil siya (Sereno) na po nag-aksyon dun so sa kanya na po yun,” Anama said.

Un­der Rule 7 Sec­tion 1 of the SC In­ter­nal Rules, cases should be raf­fled among the mem­bers of the en banc.

The mem­ber in charge shall over­see the progress and dis­po­si­tion of the cases.

Sec­tion 6 of the said rule also states that the case should only pass raf­fle if the pe­ti­tion is a prayer for the is­suance of a tem­po­rary re­strain­ing order or an ur­gent or ex­tra­or­di­nary writ such as the writ of habeas cor­pus and am­paro.

Law­mak­ers said the re­quest of the jus­tice sec­re­tary on the trans­fer of the venue of the court does not fall un­der these ex­emp­tions, there­fore, it should have been raf­fled off.

Lawyer Lorenzo Gadon is ac­cus­ing Sereno of cul­pa­ble vi­o­la­tion of the con­sti­tu­tion for al­legedly de­lay­ing the re­lease of the res­o­lu­tion on the re­quest of the jus­tice depart­ment.

Gadon al­leged that Sereno as­signed the case to As­soi­ci­ate Jus­tice Noel Ti­jam, but af­ter Ti­jam’s draft cir­cu­lated and was re­ceived fa­vor­ably by the other jus­tices, Sereno “caused the mat­ter to be as­signed to her, all in dis­re­gard of the In­ter­nal Rules of the Supreme Court.”

“Notwith­stand­ing the ex­treme ur­gency of the sit­u­a­tion, Re­spon­dent Sereno de­layed the is­suance and re­lease of the res­o­lu­tion grant­ing re­con­sid­er­a­tion be­cause she failed to get a ma­jor­ity vote on her de­sire to keep the Maute cases and similar cases in Ca­gayan de Oro, to the detri­ment of the ad­min­is­tra­tion of jus­tice,” Gadon said in his com­plaint. SunStar Philip­pines

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines

© PressReader. All rights reserved.