House to fine-tune Sereno impeach raps
The House committee on justice will reduce the number of charges it would consider filing against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno before the Senate impeachment court.
Mindoro Oriental Rep. Reynaldo Umali, committee chairman, said yesterday his panel would evaluate each of the 27 allegations against Sereno after receiving all documentary and testimonial evidence of complainant Lorenzo Gadon.
“I doubt if all 27 allegations could stand scrutiny,” Umali said.
Only the charges that could be supported with strong evidence would be included in the impeachment complaint that would be sent to the Senate for trial while the weak allegations would be dropped, he added.
At Wednesday’s hearing to determine probable cause to impeach Sereno, several justice committee members voiced doubts if Gadon and his complaint could hurdle the standards under the House impeachment rules for a case against an impeachable officer.
For a complaint to prosper, it should include the impeachable offenses enumerated in the Constitution and that the complainant must either have
personal knowledge of such offenses or have authentic documents to back his or her allegations.
But some committee members claimed Gadon did not pass the “personal knowledge” test, citing as example his allegation that Sereno altered a temporary restraining order drafted by Associate Justice Teresita de Castro. In this instance, Gadon admitted that he did not speak to De Castro and that he obtained the information from a reporter and a friend.
“We have a problem with that,” Umali’s colleague from Mindoro Oriental, Doy Leachon, said. Other committee members said this allegation could be considered hearsay.
De Castro has denied releasing “any information, report, or document regarding the work of the Court.”
Although Gadon claimed that De Castro and some other justices were willing to testify against Sereno, he stressed that there is a document with the Supreme Court clerk of court that would prove the alteration in case the justices fail to show up and corroborate his allegation.
Some committee members, including Quezon City Rep. Jose Christopher Belmonte, also came out unsatisfied with Gadon’s answer on the allegation that the Chief Justice “manipulated” the proceedings of the Judicial and Bar Council on the nomination of then solicitor general Francis Jardeleza as Supreme Court associate justice.
Umali said Gadon could face perjury charges if it turns out that he does not have personal knowledge of the offenses committed allegedly by Sereno.
He was referring to the sworn statement signed by the complainant asserting that his accusations against Sereno were based on his “own personal knowledge or on authentic documents.” The House impeachment rules require any complainant to sign such an affidavit.
In May this year, the House dismissed the impeachment case Rep. Gary Alejano of Magdalo filed against President Duterte largely due to his alleged lack of personal knowledge of the summary executions in which the former Davao City mayor was supposedly involved.
Willing to testify
If summoned, Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II said he would appear before the House committee on justice and participate in the determination of probable cause.
“If I am subpoenaed I have no choice then, of course (I would attend). I will testify. What I will only say is the truth. But as to whether I was the one who provided the documents (to Gadon), no,” Aguirre added.
One of the grounds in the impeachment complaint was Sereno’s alleged manipulation and delaying of AM No. 17-06-02-SC, which refers to the request of the Secretary of Justice to transfer the Maute cases outside of Mindanao.
Aguirre earlier explained that he wrote to Sereno to have the cases transferred to either Luzon or the Visayas for security reasons.
But the SC did not grant his request and had instead transferred the venue to either Iligan City or Cagayan de Oro City, prompting him to write a second letter to point out that both were too close to their supporters in Marawi City. He also requested that the suspects be detained at the Special Intensive Care Area (SICA) of Camp Bagong Diwa in Taguig City.
“It would be dangerous to keep them in jail because the Maute fighters are known to spring their companions out of jail. That is why I requested Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Acting Secretary Catalino Cuy to build two courtrooms inside the SICA in Taguig City so they no longer have to leave the premises,” Aguirre earlier explained.
The SC later granted his request for the transfer of the Maute suspects to Metro Manila.
Sereno’s camp is banking on the objectivity of senators and hopes to get a fair treatment once the impeachment case is elevated to the Senate for trial.
Spokespersons Winnie Salumbides and Joshua Santiago said they are no longer expecting to get a fair treatment at the House, which is dominated by President Duterte’s allies.
“Do we expect fair treatment in the Senate? As an advocate, we do not expect fair treatment, we demand fair treatment not just for the Chief Justice but for any Filipino citizen who will face charges like this,” Salumbides said in a news forum in Quezon City.
“We have reasons to be somehow optimistic in the Senate knowing they are composed of honorable, respectable and generally decent individuals whom we elected,” he said.
Santiago said they hope senators would rise to the challenge and look at the impeachment case with an open mind, reminding them of their duty as adjudicators in an impeachment trial.
“Will they do this given their political affiliations? That remains to be seen,” Santiago added.
He also warned senators of drawing the people’s wrath should they come up with the wrong decision, citing as example the unsuccessful reelection bid of lawmakers who had reportedly worked to suppress the truth in the two previous impeachment proceedings in the country.
As the House aims to continue its preliminary investigation tomorrow, Salumbides and Santiago called on the representatives to just elevate the case to the Senate. “They want to put a show and get the feel of the public,” Santiago said.
Another option both lawyers are considering after they were barred from crossexamining witnesses at the House is to seek redress from the Supreme Court.
They said Sereno would recuse herself in the event a petition is filed before the high tribunal.