(Eagle News) — More high court justices testified against Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, giving details on how she had acted “through unlawful means” in at least one instance in the West Philippine Sea controversy, and manipulated the Court several times without consulting her fellow justices, to the point of violating its own rules.
First it was only, Supreme Court Associate Justice Teresita de Castro who had earlier testified against Sereno. But in yesterday’s (December 11) hearing, three other Associate Justices – Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam and retired justice Arturo Brion – testified on the same thing, that Sereno violated several of the Court’s own rules.
They said that for the five years that Sereno served as the Chief Justice, she did not show respect nor courtesy to her fellow justices who are even more senior than her.
“The Supreme Court is a collegial, it is a consultative, deliberative, participatory body. The Chief Justice is not the Supreme Court,” Tijam told the House committee on justice hearing the impeachment complaint against Sereno.
Tijam cited how Sereno failed to present during an en banc session the Department of Justice’s request to transfer the cases involving Maute terrorists to either Luzon or Visayas.
The request of Justice secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II was dated May 29, 2017. This was however not tackled during the SC’s en banc on June 6. Instead, Sereno opted to bring this out during lunch with some of the magistrates on the same day.
“There is a distinct difference between discussing something important during the en banc session, where you have the docket folders, the materials with you and holding a caucus on an important matter where in front of you are plates, forks and food,” Tijam said.
“I’d like to decipher why the Chief Justice did not act on it promptly, being the member in charge. I was not the member in charge but I acted more promptly by circulating a memorandum to the en banc and trying to force a vote,” he added.
Tijam said that Sereno should have promptly referred the matter en banc, regardless of her position or thoughts on the case, thus a delay in the resolution of the petition could have been avoided.
“But the point is, regardless of the thoughts, the sentiments, the feelings of the Chief Justice, she should’ve taken the initiative of bringing it to the attention of the en banc because, after all, it is the en banc that will decide on the matter,” he said.
-High court suffering from Sereno’s actions, says De Castro
Supreme Court Associate Justice Teresita De Castro, on the other hand, point out on how Sereno in the last five years, have been repeatedly disregarding rules and procedures of the high court.
De Castro said she had been telling Sereno, the most junior among the justices, that she cannot do this, but Sereno did not heed her advice.
“Hanggang kailan ba kami magtitiis?” De Castro said during the House committee on justice hearing on the impeachment complaint against Sereno.
Treason
Another Supreme Court associate justice Francis Jardeleza said Sereno committed no less than “treason” for illegally obtaining classified information on the Philippine government’s claims over the disputed West Philippine Sea.
He said Sereno committed not only treason but disloyalty to the public for referring to the Ito Abba rock formation as an “island.”
“Iyong sinasabi ko na ang chief justice ang nag commit ng disloyalty and treason is not a plain opinion. Iyon ay batay sa facts. Ginamit at pinalabas nya sa publiko ang classified na dokumento. Tinawag na island ang feature na hirap ang gobyerno na i-prove na rock,” Jardeleza said.
“I just want to ask her: who is disloyal to the Philippine government?” said during the House committee on justice yesterday.
Jardeleza served as Solicitor General of the Republic of the Philippines from February 2012 until his appointment as the 173rd Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on August 20, 2014. He also served as Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon.
He also served as Agent for the Republic of the Philippines and Head of the Philippine legal team handling the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Annex VII arbitration with China, in relation to the West Philippine Sea maritime disputes.
Jardeleza wondered how Sereno was able to get information that was confidential and restricted, and known only to lawyers in the executive department.
“My question is: how did she learn of it? And what has the judiciary have to do with our case?” Jardeleza said, He also questioned Sereno’s reference to Itu Aba as an island, which is contrary to the Philippine government’s position that it is “merely just a rock formation where no life form can exist.”
Retired Supreme Court associate justice Arturo Brion also testified before the House committee on justice to corroborate the testimonies of the other high court justices.
He also noted how Sereno blocked the earlier JBC nomination on Jardeleza to the Supreme Court. The high court later ruled in favor of Jardeleza’s inclusion to the JBC shortlist.
“You are getting what you want through these devious means that are not right,” Brion said of Sereno.
In the high court’s decision on the case of former solicitor general Jardeleza against Sereno, it called the exclusion of Jardeleza because of Sereno’s manipulation as a ‘defect’ and a “vice” that the high court should guard against.
“As the branch of government tasked to guarantee that the protection of due process is available to an individual in proper cases, the Court finds the subject shortlist as tainted with a vice that it is assigned to guard against. Indeed, the invocation of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 must be deemed to have never come into operation in light of its erroneous application on the original ground against Jardeleza’s integrity,” the high court’s decision dated August 19, 2014, penned then by Associate Justice Jose Mendoza said.
“This rule may well be applied to the current situation for an opposing view submits to an undue relaxation of the Bill of Rights. To this, the Court shall not concede,” the high court’s resolution said then.
Sereno’s lawyers, however, insisted that the Chief Justice did no wrong
