‘SC justice to testify in CJ impeach hearing’

MANILA, Philippines — A Supreme Court (SC) justice will attend the next House committee hearing on the impeachment case against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on Monday to reinforce arguments that she had committed an impeachable offense, complainant Lorenzo Gadon said yesterday.

“Yes, she confirmed her attendance to the hearing,” Gadon said, referring to Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro.

The House committee on justice, chaired by Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, has set for Monday until Wednesday the next hearings on the case. The panel is seeking to establish probable cause to impeach the chief magistrate.

After getting snubbed by Sereno, the committee ruled on Wednesday to invite her colleagues in the SC to shed light on issues raised against her.

De Castro herself was unavailable to confirm her attendance, but an insider who declined to be named said she has accepted an invitation to show up at the hearing.

“Justice De Castro will appear before the House justice committee on issues under the culpable violation of the Constitution ground against the Chief Justice,” the source said in a text message.

Umali, meanwhile, revealed they might extend deliberations on the impeachment complaint to January 2018 when Congress resumes session, and not end on Dec.13 as earlier announced.

“I am afraid that we might not be able to vote on the committee report this Dec. 13 or the day when we adjourn for the holidays,” he said.

In inviting De Castro, Umali’s committee cited an internal memorandum she filed in July questioning several administrative orders of Sereno, including the appointment of a Philippine Judicial Academy (Philja) official and the provision of travel allowances for her staff.

The senior magistrate specifically assailed the appointment of Brenda Jay Mendoza as Philja chief of office for the Philippine Mediation Center, in violation of Administrative Order 33-2008 that required the appointment for the post to be approved by the SC collegially.

De Castro also assailed Sereno’s grant of foreign travel allowance to members of her staff without the required approval from the full court.

She revealed that the Chief Justice’s staff members were being given travel allowances even when their trips abroad were on “official time,” which should not involve expenditure of public funds.

Furthermore, De Castro has questioned the “long delay” in the appointment to vacant key positions in the SC, a situation “prejudicial to the best interest of service.”

The issues in her memorandum were among the grounds for impeachment raised by Gadon in his complaint.

But De Castro denied Gadon’s claim at last Wednesday’s hearing that she was the source of information of Manila Times reporter Jomar Canlas for his article about Sereno’s supposed falsification of several SC documents, including a temporary restraining order on party-list proclamations.

“I have never released to Jomar Canlas any information, report or document regarding the work of the Court,” she stressed in a brief statement.

But Gadon downplayed her denial. “What is being denied is that she gave to Jomar Canlas documents and information. It was not denied that the memorandum exists. In fact, the House already has a certified copy of the said memorandum,” the lawyer explained.

Gadon said the House panel is also set to invite Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza to share his thoughts on the impeachment charge that Sereno manipulated the Judicial and Bar Council in an attempt to block his appointment to the high court.

The lawyer cited Jardeleza’s speech at the commencement exercises of the UP College of Law in 2015 where he slammed Sereno.

Sereno had objected to Jardeleza’s nomination to the SC because of his move – then as as solicitor general – to order the deletion of key parts of the Philippine memorandum or memorial that was to be submitted to a United Nations-backed arbitral tribunal in The Hague, particularly the portion on Itu Aba.

The Taiwan-controlled Itu Aba is the largest island in the contested Spratly archipelago.

Bound by secrecy

In his speech, Jardeleza said even if he wanted to, he could not defend himself from Sereno’s accusations as he was bound by lawyer-client secrecy and could not discuss in public aspects of the territorial dispute case.

“Under our code of ethics, we carry the secrets of the client to the grave. These secrets include case litigation strategy and tactics. You do not telegraph these to the adversary. That would be treason,” he said.

Describing his ordeal as a “near death experience,” Jardeleza said Sereno violated “with impunity” laws and administrative orders prohibiting public officers charged with the custody of confidential and secret documents containing state secrets from revealing their contents.

“Sharks and bullies can be brutal. I cannot guarantee that you will triumph over the bullies and the sharks. In my case, I almost perished. I was bloodied. But I stood my ground. I pushed back. So that’s my advice to you: when faced with a bully, push back,” the magistrate told UP law graduates in his speech.

In Jardeleza’s case, Gabon also cited an SC ruling allowing the inclusion of the former solicitor general in the shortlist for the vacancy in the high tribunal, after being removed by the JBC chaired by Sereno.

Retired Associate Justice Arturo Brion even wrote in his concurring opinion then that “CJ Sereno manipulated the JBC process to exclude Jardeleza as a nominee.”

Brion had accused Sereno of “character assassination in the guise of a Supplemental Comment,” the release of which Sereno had allegedly timed to make it impossible for Jardeleza to prepare his response.

Earlier reports highlighted the lack of support for Sereno from her colleagues in the judiciary in her fight against impeachment, unlike the support cultivated by the late chief justice Renato Corona during his impeachment trial in 2012. Judges and court employees then issued manifesto of support and even held “Black Monday” protests.

Coercive power

With Sereno’s attendance on Monday still uncertain, lawmakers are considering the use of their “coercive power” by issuing a subpoena to compel her to show up.

In a radio interview, Umali said his panel would decide whether to subpoena Sereno.

He said issuing a subpoena, unlike extending an invitation, is a show of the House’s coercive power.

In declining to attend the committee hearing, Sereno stressed she has the right to be represented by counsel.

Josalee Deinla, a spokesperson for the Chief Justice, said summoning Sereno would violate her constitutional rights.

“How could the House subpoena her when it is her right to be present in the proceedings and she has decided that she will not go because she thinks she will not be heard anyway?” she said.

“If you force her to show up, that will be another violation of her rights,” she pointed out.

Her impeachment lawyers claim that such rights were violated when the Umali committee barred them on Wednesday from participating in its deliberations and questioning Gadon and witnesses on behalf of Sereno.

They could attend the hearings but could not take part in the deliberations, Umali said.

He said Sereno’s lawyers could pass through him or any committee member any questions they may have for Gadon and witnesses.

Her lawyers said the prohibition was tantamount to preventing the Chief Justice herself from participating in the hearings. They left the committee on Wednesday after permission to do so was granted.

Lead counsel Alexander Poblador said they decided to leave the hearing “because we cannot meaningfully participate and we did not want to participate in the proceedings because it is contrary to the position of the Chief Justice that the cross-examination should be done by her counsel.”

He said Umali or any member of his committee “cannot conduct the cross examination in behalf of the Chief Justice because they are not her counsels.”

He said they would consider “all options,” including seeking remedies in the Supreme Court.

However, he added that they would want the House to expedite its process and send the case against Sereno to the Senate for trial.

“The decision to expedite would really be the committee’s, so we are hoping that they would in fact expedite the process. If they believe Gadon has evidence, if they believe the case is sufficient in form and in substance and cites sufficient grounds, why not go to the Senate,” he stressed.

Poblador pointed out the justice committee hearings are apparently intended “to provide evidence, which Gadon doesn’t seem to have.”

He said he was looking forward to grilling Gadon and his alleged witnesses in a Senate trial, which he added would be “consistent with the rights of the Chief Justice.” – Jess Diaz, Delon Porcalla