IMPEACHMENT FILED VS. 7 JUSTICES
Makabayan bloc leads impeachment case against justices who helped oust former chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno
Lawmakers belonging to the Magnificent 7 bloc in Congress have filed impeachment complaints against the associate justices who ousted former chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno through a quo warranto petition.
Slapped with charges for culpable violation of the Constitution are Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam, Andres Reyes Jr. and Alexander Gesmundo.
Former Associate Justice and now Ombudsman Samuel Martires, who is one of the eight who removed Sereno through quo warranto, was not charged “because he is no longer an incumbent associate justice.”
House Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has 10 session days to inform Congress about the impeachment complaints while the House committee on rules has three session days to include the matter in the calendar.
The impeachment complaints were filed by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, Ifugao Rep. Teddy Baguilat, Magdalo Rep. Gary Alejano and Akbayan Rep. Tom Villarin.
The complainants alleged that the above-mentioned justices committed culpable violation of the Constitution because:
One, They are fully aware that impeachment is the only mode or process of removing impeachable officials, like the Chief Justice, which is buttressed by the wealth of relevant jurisprudence of no less than the High Court and the pertinent deliberations in the Constitutional Commission on the same issue.
Two, a petition for quo warranto or any other mode of removal is anathema to the unequivocal mandate of the Constitution that the power to impeach is solely vested with the Congress.
In construing the word “may” as merely directory suggesting the availability of other options of ousting impeachable officers, the respondent justices violated the unmistakable context and intent of Section 2 in relation to Section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution.
Three, they usurped the constitutional power of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to vet the qualifications of applications for positions in the judiciary and to nominate applicants to judicial positions to the exclusion of both the Executive and the Supreme Court.
De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Tijam and Jardeleza are likewise charged with betrayal of public trust for their refusal to inhibit themselves in deciding the quo warranto petition against Sereno despite their alleged “bias and prejudice” against Sereno as shown by their testimonies before the House Committee on Justice which was then hearing the impeachment complaint against Sereno filed by lawyer Lorenzo Gadon and “their statements during the oral arguments in the quo warranto petition.”
Four justices who are among those who voted yes to oust Sereno are vying for the Chief Justice post.
The complainant-lawmakers believe that they should be disqualified and not appointed due to the pendency of their respective impeachment cases.
They are Associate Justices Bersmin, Peralta, Reyes and De Castro.
Had one of the four been appointed as the next chief justice amid the pendency of the respective impeachment complaints against them, it will indicate that the JBC is not really independent, said Lagman.
Under the revised rules of JBC those with pending cases are disqualified from nomination or appointment to the post. The JBC Rules also require that applicants must be of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence consistent with Section 7 of Article VII of the Constitution.
Lagman said the magistrates also lack “fidelity to sound moral and ethical standards” as required by the JBC because they refused to recuse themselves from participating in the adjudication of the quo warranto petition despite their ill will and bias against Sereno.”
Although the Magnificent coalition members acknowledge the fact that they lack the numbers to remove from their posts the respondents, they maintained their position that they will pursue the ouster of the above-mentioned.
“If we will not file this complaint then we are not making efforts to restore the independence of the judiciary, including the Supreme Court,” Lagman said. For his part, Alejano said “sa
kabila ng presensiya ng supermajority na kaalyado ng pangulo sa Kongreso… tungkulin naming maging boses ng hustisiya at katarungan na nayurakan sa pamamagitan ng pagayon sa quo warranto (Despite the presence of the supermajority that are allies of the President...it is still our task to be the voice of justice, which had been trampled upon by agreeing to the quo warranto).”