Bersamin denies being partial to administration

Days before his retirement, Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin has defended his voting record in the Supreme Court (SC) and cried foul over insinuations he was partial to the Duterte administration.

Bersamin aired his sentiments in an interview with CNN Philippines yesterday.

Raised during the interview were his votes favoring the quo warranto case against former chief justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, declaration of martial law in Mindanao, upholding the constitutionality of Sen. Leila de Lima’s detention and the burial of former president Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

“I think that is an unfair implication, it is as if I am siding with the administration. I have always explained that a justice, such as me, when we study a case, we have different opinions,” said Bersamin.

The SC chief credited lawyers of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for being prepared when defending their cases before the high court.

But he clarified he is not unduly siding with the OSG, insisting he makes it a point to always weigh arguments from both sides.

Bersamin will turn 70 on Oct. 18, the mandatory age of retirement for a justice. He got his appointment as chief magistrate 11 months ago.

In the same interview, Bersamin also said it would be interference on the part of the United States to bar from entering the country those responsible for the detention of De Lima, as proposed in an amendment to a bill by two US senators.

US Sens. Richard Durbin and Patrick Leahy made the proposal last month.

In proposing the amendment, the two senators said her indictment and detention were politically motivated.

“PR (public relations) tour de force,” Bersamin said of the US senators’ move.

“If they do implement that to ban officials who they believe are responsible for the continued incarceration of Senator De Lima it’s their privilege, nothing we can do about that. But the nature of that kind of action is interference, (but) they are privileged to do that,” the SC chief said.

He also said he does not consider himself as being among those responsible for sending De Lima to jail since he was only performing a judicial function by upholding the constitutionality of her detention on Oct. 10, 2017. The SC voted 9-6 to uphold the detention of De Lima. It affirmed the ruling in June 2018.

“She came to the court and asked for relief and we considered the plea, we debated it. Of course she should not expect that all of us will agree one way or the other. I happened to take the side against her because I am not convinced that we should deprive the trial court to have jurisdiction over her because if we would dictate on the trial court to set her free or remove the case, grabbing the jurisdiction of the trial court, we cannot do that,” he said.

He emphasized the US should not dictate on a case that is already in court. “If they would dictate on us on what we should do to a case that is already pending before a court, I would not allow that,” he pointed out.