De Castro appointment not a reward – Palace

Malacañang yesterday denied the appointment of Supreme Court Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro as chief justice was her reward for helping unseat her predecessor Maria Lourdes Sereno.

Presidential spokesman Harry Roque said President Duterte chose De Castro because she is the most senior among the aspirants.

“Wala pong saysay yan (That’s nonsense). PRRD upheld judicial professionalism by appointing most senior of

aspirants,” Roque said in a text message, referring to the President by his initials.

Roque said De Castro has more experience than Sereno, whose appointment in 2012 was voided by the SC last May because of her failure to file the required number of statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).

In a 153-page decision penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam, the Supreme Court said Sereno is not eligible to become chief justice because of “lack of integrity.”

Voting 8-6, the high court acted on the quo warranto petition by the Office of the Solicitor General, the government’s top lawyer.

Sereno believes Duterte had a hand in her ouster but the President denies this. The President has expressed willingness to resign if anyone can prove that he was involved in Sereno’s ouster.

Last Friday, the SC announced De Castro and her fellow associate justices Diosdado Peralta and Lucas Bersamin were in the shortlist of nominees for the position of chief justice.

The following day, officials announced the appointment of De Castro as the country’s chief magistrate.

Some lawmakers said the appointment of the 69-year old associate justice was her reward for her role in the ouster of Sereno, who had been critical of Duterte’s policies.

Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III dismissed allegations of payback, saying the constitutional process was followed in selecting the new chief justice.

“On her retirement day, the President has 90 days to fill the vacancy and the JBC (Judicial and Bar Council) will work to come up with a shortlist. Everything’s in order,” Pimentel said.

Pimentel also disputed criticisms that De Castro’s appointment would lead the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), whose members are SC justices, to rule in favor of former senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’ electoral protest against Vice President Leni Robredo.

He said the process at the PET takes time and the pending case can still be considered to be in early stage.

Robredo, for her part, remained mum on the appointment of De Castro.

The Vice President has been vocal against the ouster of Sereno.

Robredo had described as a “dark moment” the SC’s decision to affirm the ouster of Sereno last June.

The College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP) said De Castro was among those who voted in favor of the burial of the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

The CEGP said De Castro also voted in favor of the arrest of Duterte’s critic, Sen. Leila De Lima on drug trafficking charges.

“(Those were aside from voting in favor) on petition for quo warranto and the voting for the constitutionality of Duterte’s imposition of martial law in Mindanao and the suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus and the yearlong extension of the same,” CEGP national president Jose Mari Callueng said.

Magdalo party-list Rep. Gary Alejano has claimed the appointment of De Castro reflects the administration’s lack of delicadeza (propriety).

Alejano said Duterte instituted the dirty game of “patronage” and a politically expedient “revolving door policy” in the judiciary after he appointed De Castro as chief justice.

“Duterte is adopting a revolving-door policy with his appointment of De Castro. The President seems oblivious to the impact of such patronage politics on the judiciary and its mandate of delivering justice to the people,” he said.

Alejano described the appointment of De Castro as a “cheap dole out” to reward Duterte’s followers.

Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said De Castro does not deserve to be appointed chief justice and should have been disqualified by the Judicial and Bar Council due to the impeachment complaint they filed against her.

Lagman said it would have been better if De Castro declined her nomination just like Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio did, aside from the “seriousness of the impeachment complaint against her for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.”

Lagman also expressed doubt that De Castro would be able to accomplish anything substantial, noting she will only be chief justice for less than two months.

“Fealty to the high standards of ethics and morality required of judicial officers should have impelled De Castro to forfeit her ambition. Her serving an inordinately brief tenure for … a mere month and a half militates against her appointment,” he stressed.

Lagman maintained they no longer have to amend the impeachment complaint they filed against De Castro and her six other SC colleagues on the basis that she still remains to be a member of the high tribunal, although her retirement benefits may be scuttled.

The moment De Castro retires in October owing to the mandatory retirement age of 70, the impeachment complaint against her in particular will automatically be rendered moot and academic.

“How can you remove someone who’s retired? We’re not demanding the impossible,” Lagman remarked.

41 days

Senators from the majority bloc, however, expressed optimism that De Castro will be able achieve something for the SC despite her short tenure of 41 days.

Roque said it is legally untenable for Duterte to consider a possible extension of De Castro’s term. De Castro will retire from the judiciary on Oct. 8.

Pimentel and Sen. Francis Escudero, in separate interviews, said they would not prejudge De Castro, the second most senior magistrate of the high court.

“I congratulate her. While she may have a short term, I don’t believe that she will be starting from scratch because she’s been with the SC for a long time already,” Escudero told dzBB.

“I believe she can do something of significance in the SC,” he said.