Interesting times for the Supreme Court

THE news last Sunday that an impeachment complaint would be filed against Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno was not surprising to court watchers. Many, including this writer, believe that the trickles that started some five years ago, have gathered force, speed, and momentum and have now become a raging torrent after Justice Teresita de Castro circulated a couple of days ago her memorandum about continuing irregularities in the court.

As an outsider, I now merely rely on news reports on internal developments within the Supreme Court. Thus, I have yet to see the De Castro memorandum on the acts or omissions complained of. But the subjects of Justice De Castro’s complaints are nothing new to the members of the court who have been there since the Chief Justice assumed office in 2012.

The news report on the De Castro memorandum stated that Chief Justice Sereno has so far failed to fill up critical vacancies in the High Court, to the prejudice of the service; had appointed officials without the approval of the court en banc; and had allowed members of her internal office staff to travel on official business and to use Supreme Court funds without authority from the court en banc (when the travel and the expenditure of court funds, even by justices of the court, require court en banc approval).

To an outsider, these matters may appear to be innocuous transgressions that happen in any organization and that the members of the organization can easily discuss and resolve among themselves. But continuing irregularities, particularly from a branch of the government like the Supreme Court, cannot be viewed in isolation and will always have to be viewed in context; an impeachment court will certainly have its own unique view as it can see matters in their totality and from the prism of the specific charges made.

The dispute that arose from the revival of the Regional Court Administration Office (RCAO) soon after Chief Justice Sereno assumed office is an example of an irregularity that must be placed and understood in the context of an impeachable offense, when and if this incident is cited as one of the grounds for the impeachment of the chief justice.

The dispute started in November, 2012 as the Chief Justice was slowly getting comfortable with her position as the head of the third branch of government. It appeared that the Chief Justice, on her own, issued an administrative order reviving Regional Court Administration Office No. 7 based in Cebu.

When the revival was submitted to the court for approval (with the chief justice presiding), no definitive decision resulted as some justices objected to the revival because of perceived problems, among them, the view that this is a decentralization move leading to the removal of the Visayas and Mindanao areas from the administrative authority of the Office of the court administrator in Manila. Despite the lack of unanimity, the chief justice issued a resolution ratifying the revival. Thus, the regional office was inaugurated with judges and other court officials from Manila, the Visayas and Mindanao in attendance.

Justice De Castro brought the matter to the court’s attention and invited the court to recall that, contrary to what the court resolution reflected, the court never approved the revival of the RCAO and that the chief justice has no authority, on her own, to order the establishment of a regional court administration office.

After further deliberation, the court resolved to recall the Chief Justice’s unauthorized resolution. I remember that some of us then wondered how the judges and officials who went to Cebu would liquidate their expenses in the absence of a valid and subsisting resolution authorizing their travel (a good matter to inquire into at the proper time).

Another big dispute rocked the court when Justice Francis Jardeleza applied for the position vacated by Justice Roberto Abad. I recited all these developments in the separate concurring opinion I filed with the court, which I reproduced in my retirement book, A Judicial Journey (at pages 197 to 231). For the information of those who have not read the court’s ruling in Jardeleza v. Sereno (G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014), I summarize below part of the irregularities that took place.

Most of us in the court had no hint that trouble could be brewing in the appointment of Justice Abad’s replacement until Chief Justice Sereno informed us by letter that “several Justices” had requested that the court do away with the voting for the court’s recommendations to the JBC, a practice the court has traditionally observed pursuant to Section 1, Rule 8, of Judicial Bar Council Rule (JBC)-009.

As usual, we informally talked among ourselves outside of the en banc and asked who had made the request. We discovered that no one did. It then dawned on us that something must be afoot and asked the chief justice (through Justice De Castro) who these requesting justices were. True enough, the chief justice could not name anyone.

As a result, applicants who could have been recommended by the court missed their chance to be the court’s recommended nominees. Sol. Gen. Jardeleza was among them as many justices admired him for his performance as solicitor general (in particular, for his oral argument skills) and had openly expressed their support for him.

On June 24, 2014, Sol. Gen. Jardeleza filed a letter-petition before the court alleging that the chief justice had made allegations against him ex parte, without informing him of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and without giving him the opportunity to be heard; that the JBC violated its own rules in considering his fitness for the position; and that even the members of the court had been denied the chance to submit their recommendations.

Court records showed that the Office of the Clerk of Court received the Jardeleza letter-petition in the afternoon of June 25, 2014, or five days before the JBC’s June 30, 2014 meeting.

This letter was raffled to a member of the court only on July 1, 2014, or on the 6th day after its receipt by the court. The raffle took place 30 minutes before the court en banc 10 o’clock meeting of that day. The raffle, furthermore, was made after the June 30, 2014, JBC meeting and voting for the shortlist of nominees.

We could only shake our heads in puzzlement and disgust at how brazen the chief justice had been; her hand was obvious as she controlled the raffle through the clerk of court and had the influence as presiding officer to direct how the JBC proceedings would take place.

Later that day (June 30, 2014), the JBC transmitted its short list of nominees to the Office of the President. JBC records show that Jardeleza garnered enough votes (4 votes) to be in the short list but he was not included because of questions regarding his integrity.

The Jardeleza letter-petition was not placed in the court’s agenda until July 8, 2014, and was then dismissed for being moot as the JBC list had long been submitted to the President.

This initial salvo of irregularities prompted Sol. Gen. Jardeleza to file a petition for certiorari with the court, which led the court – on the eve of the deadline for the President’s period to appoint – to issue the writ and to direct the JBC to transmit the name of Sol. Gen. Jardeleza to the President. President Aquino promptly appointed the Solicitor General as associate justice of the Supreme Court, but the latter by then had already suffered the agony of being labelled a traitor by Chief Justice Sereno.

Other details of the irregularities committed against Justice Jardeleza are all described in my Separate Concurring Opinion (and reproduced in my book) and are best read from the original source.