The differences between CJ Sereno and CJ Corona

There are many pundits and deep, independent thinkers in the Philippines nowadays who believe that what happened to the late chief justice Renato Corona may not at all happen to incumbent (on wellness leave) Maria Lourdes Sereno. For all we know, Sereno may have the last laugh and the rest bow in ignominy. For one, Corona was charged with intentionally submitting a false SALN, not reporting "hidden wealth." Sereno is not being accused of hidden wealth. She merely did not submit her SALN. There is a whale of a difference between a sin of willful commission and a sin of omission.

The first might have been done with malice, deceit, and bad faith. The second might have been a mere error in judgment, a lapse of discretion. To be fair, let us also take up the factors where the two chief justices are similar. Both were pushed by their respective appointing powers; Corona was the favorite of GMA while Sereno was the favorite of PNoy. Corona was chosen over the more senior (and they say more qualified) Antonio Carpio.

Corona caught the ire of PNoy allegedly because he ruled against the Cojuangco family in the Hacienda Luisita case. Sereno caught the ire of President Digong allegedly after making so many pronouncements on human rights and summary executions, as well as her defense of women's dignity against so-called sexist comments. Apart from that, Sereno is different from Corona. Corona was well-loved by the court judges and personnel, Sereno is not.

Moreover, Corona was found guilty by the Senate for intentionally withholding material fact in his SALN while he in the Supreme Court. On the other hand, Sereno was a member of the UP School of Law faculty when she was applying for the Judicial and Bar Council. If the Bar Council and the president opted to waive (and whether or not they could really legally waive it is beside the point) the submission of a SALN as a condition for being considered for appointment, it was not the fault of Sereno. She did not lie under oath. She just invoked her right to be silent by not submitting anything. If she was appointed despite her non-submission, was it her fault? More importantly, is it an impeachable offense?

I am not an apologist for Sereno. She does not know me from Adam. But this is my humble opinion, which reflects the views of many lawyers and Law professors whom I meet every day in the colleges where I teach. Those crying for her crucifixion may find her resurrected after a while. More importantly, I honestly do not believe there are 16 senators who will vote for her impeachment. On the contrary, more than seven (there are only 23 members of the Senate now, because of the appointment as DFASecretary ofAlan Peter Cayetano) will most likely vote for acquittal. Unless the prosecution can come up with earth-shaking grounds, then I submit Sereno will most likely come out the big winner in this hullabaloo.

Of course, the modern scribes and Pharisees might manipulate the process and Jesus may yet lose to Barabbas. We can never be sure.