SC defers ruling on admin case vs Sereno

The Supreme Court (SC) has deferred ruling on the administrative case it initiated against ousted chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno over her earlier public attacks against her colleagues.

Justices of the high court tackled the case in their session yesterday but failed to come up with a decision, according to an insider.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity for lack of authority to speak for the Court, revealed that the magistrates have agreed to penalize Sereno “for transgressing the sub judice rule and for casting aspersions and ill motives to the members of the Supreme Court” but were divided as to the penalty to be imposed on her.

The insider said some justices suggested the imposition of the lightest administrative sanction of “reprimand” on Sereno, while others wanted a harsher penalty of suspension from law practice.

Because of this lack of consensus – as required in administrative cases – the SC justices decided to reset deliberations for their next session on Tuesday next week.

The high court is expected to rule that the ousted chief justice violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Judicial Conduct with her public attacks against the justices who voted for her ouster after earlier testifying in the impeachment case against her before the House of Representatives, according to the source.

The insider further bared that several justices wanted to impose “reprimand” – the lightest form of penalty in administrative cases – to Sereno “out of pity.”

“The other members want harsher penalty of suspension from law practice for several months. There was no consensus so the case was reset,” the source explained.

Still, the justices agreed to penalize Sereno and not just issue an admonition, which is just a warning and not a sanction.

The SC initiated the administrative case and issued a show cause order against Sereno when it ordered her removal from office and invalidated her appointment to the top judicial post in 2012 through a decision last May 11, which became final last June 19.

In her compliance filed last month, Sereno asked the Court not to penalize her as she did not violate any rules.

She claimed that public statements she made was in response to attacks against her, including accusations from Solicitor General Jose Calida.

She argued that she could not be faulted for explaining her side to the public after her demands that she be given the right to due process were repeatedly rejected by the House justice committee in the impeachment hearings.

Sereno also claimed she was denied her right to be heard by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court and her right to be heard by an objective and impartial tribunal when the six justices still participated in the proceedings against her.

The six magistrates accused by Sereno of biases against her were Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam and Samuel Martires.

She argued that she “cannot reasonably be expected to keep her silence despite vigorous assaults on her integrity.”

Sereno added that her public statements about her case were made as “partylitigant” and not as counsel or judge.

She believed it would be the “height of injustice” if her calls for fairness would be the basis to remove her license as a lawyer.