Justices deny allegations of bias, hit pattern of lies

The six magistrates that former chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno wanted to inhibit from the quo warranto case filed against her have all denied allegations of bias.

The six – Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Samuel Martires and Noel Tijam – explained through the main decision and separate concurring opinions why they rejected her plea.

Sereno claimed that they should inhibit themselves from deciding on the petition that eventually unseated her because they testified in earlier impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives, they have an axe to grind against her and for showing biases during the oral arguments on the case last month. De Castro, a known rival of Sereno, branded the ousted SC chief as a “pathological liar” in seeking her inhibition from the case.

“Respondent’s accusation against me is but a figment of her imagination.

She lied once again as she did many times even under oath without remorse or guilt feelings,” she stressed in her concurring opinion.

This character of Sereno, she added, was precisely one of the reasons why she was not fit for the chief justice post.

“(A) pattern of lies and deceptions characterized respondent’s conduct,” De Castro pointed out in the strongly worded opinion.

According to her, this pattern of lies was proven on record and after the oral arguments of the Court on the quo warranto case.

“Respondent’s appointment as chief justice of the Supreme Court, secured through her lies and deception in the entries in her sworn PDS (Personal Data Sheet) and regarding her non-compliance with the abovementioned SALN requirement of the JBC, is void ab initio, and for such reason,” De Castro wrote.

She said the ousted SC chief “deliberately deceived and misled the JBC so as to secure her inclusion in the shortlist of candidates for the vacancy.”

This “pattern of deception,” she added, continued when her camp claimed in the media that she was taking a two-week wellness leave when Sereno, with the en banc’s approval, announced that she was taking an indefinite leave.

She also denied the ousted chief justice’s allegation that she had professional insecurity with Sereno, who bypassed her for the top judicial post.

“I have been publicly maligned and accused to be bitter about not being appointed as Supreme Court chief justice... For years now, respondent and I have had a generally professional relationship... The disagreements between respondent and me are clearly not personal but work-related,” De Castro explained.

Tijam, who penned the SC ruling, also belied the allegation, explaining that there were no “strong and compelling evidence” presented by Sereno against them. “Mere conjectures and speculations cannot justify the inhibition of a Judge or Justice from a judicial matter,” the 153-page decision stressed. “We deem it baseless, not to mention problematic, the respondent’s prayer that the matter of inhibition of the six Associate Justices be decided by the remaining members of the Court,” it pointed out.

Tijam likewise rebutted Sereno’s argument that they should have inhibited from the ouster proceedings because of “delicadeza.”

“It bears to be reminded that voluntary inhibition leaves to the sound discretion of the judges concerned whether to sit in a case for other just and valid reasons, with only their conscience as guide,” it added.

Peralta, for his part, rejected Sereno’s argument that he should have disqualified himself from the quo warranto case because as former head of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), he would have personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the petition.

“I have no personal knowledge of the disputed facts concerning the proceedings... I maintain that respondent failed to establish that I have actual bias concerning her qualification to be appointed as Chief Justice,” he explained.

In his separate opinion, Bersamin also made a similar denial in rejecting the inhibition plea against him.

“I vehemently deny the respondent’s unwarranted and unfair imputations of bias against and animosity towards her,” he said.

Bersamin specifically denied alluding to Sereno as a “dictator” as she had alleged, saying his answers were taken out of context.

“My statement was clearly hypothetical about what the Court would become if any of its Members, including her as the Chief Justice, was to act dictatorially,” he clarified.

Lastly, Martires belied Sereno’s claim that he was a “faith shaming” justice when he supposedly “insinuated that her pervasive faith in God could be a sign of mental illness” during oral arguments.

“Sereno now changes her self-styled award-winning act by shifting the blame from political personalities and the independence of the judiciary to religion,” he said in his concurring opinion.

Martires, himself a devout Christian, lamented Sereno’s allegation.

“Sereno is fully aware that we have the same spiritual beliefs – that God is the reason for our success, the source of our happiness and the center of our lives,” he said.

“It would be incongruous, if not totally absurd, for me to consider movant Sereno as sira ulo on the basis of her religious beliefs because that would make me crazier than her,” he added.