Sereno camp laments 'misrepresentations' in impeachment hearing

MANILA, Philippines — A spokesman for Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, who is facing the possibility of a full impeachment trial at the Senate, lamented on Tuesday the "misrepresentations" meant to mislead the public and the justice panel during its Monday hearing.

Jojo Lacanilao, a spokesman for the chief magistrate, said the testimonies of the four incumbent and former justices of the Supreme Court were "colored" by personal sentiments and reflected personal opinions on matters already decided by the tribunal.

"Their testimonies reflected personal opinions of the justices on matters already decided by the Supreme Court en banc," Lacanilao said. "Their statements did not prove that the allegations against the Chief Justice were impeachable offenses. It is unfortunate that their (justices) perspectives were colored by their personal sentiments."

The divisions among some of the court's justices were on full display on Monday at the House justice panel hearing on the presence of probable cause in the impeachment complaint against Sereno.

Justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Francis Jardeleza and Noel Tijam and former justice Arturo Brion slammed Sereno for skirting the rules of the en banc, or full court, and undermining their collegiality.

Jardeleza, whose appointment was almost successfully blocked by Sereno, accused the chief justice of treason for obtaining and divulging classified information on the Philippine government's case against China over the waters in the West Philippine Sea.

Aside from the "manipulation" of the shortlist submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council to then-President Benigno Aquino III for consideration, Sereno is also accused of delaying the resolution on the request of Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre III to transfer the trial of Maute cases from Mindanao to Metro Manila.

"We do not see the point of raising these issues again. That’s all water under the bridge. Justice Jardeleza was appointed by President Aquino. The SC en banc resolved to grant Secretary Aguirre’s request," Lacanilao stressed.

According to the spokespersons of Sereno, it was Justice Antonio Carpio who complained about Jardeleza's deletion of the Itu Aba discussions in the Philippine submissions to the United Nations-backed arbitration tribunal.

READ: Sereno camp says she acted in 'good faith' in excluding Jardeleza from JBC list

Jardeleza was accused of seriously compromising Philippine interests by deleting the country's position that Itu Aba was not an island but a rock. According to Sereno's spokespersons, had the tribunal not ruled on this, Itu Aba would be the basis of China's encroachment into the Philippine territory.

The UN-backed tribunal ruled that Itu Aba was not an island capable of claiming its own exclusive economic zone, securing the country's exclusive economic rights to Reed Bank and Malampaya and to the fisheries, oil and gas and mineral resources in the area.

This is the reason why Jardeleza's deletion of the Itu Aba discussion undermined the country's legal claim and territorial integrity, according to the spokespersons of Sereno.

Lacanilao said the then solicitor general's decision became the subject of Carpio's testimony before the JBC and Sereno's action to question Jardeleza's integrity.

“The chief justice did not commit treason. What constitutes acts of treason are defined in the Revised Penal Code, and none of the actions of the chief justice, as alleged by Justice Jardeleza, fall under these acts. When Senior Justice Carpio brought to her attention the Itu Aba case, as member of the JBC, she was duty bound to raise the matter and she did,” Lacanilao said, adding that accusing Sereno of treason for doing her job as ex-officio chair of JBC was absurd.

Lacanilao also defended Sereno against accusations that the chief justice failed to consult the full court regarding the transfer of Maute cases.

READ: Tijam: Transfer of Maute cases discussed over lunch, not en banc

He said that Aguirre did not file a petition and merely wrote a letter addressed to Sereno which was received on May 29. It was referred to Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez and Assistant Court Administrator Theodore Te for recommendations.

On June 5, according to the Sereno spokesman, all justices, including Tijam and De Castro, received the Aguirre letter, recommendations and a draft resolution. The following day, the full court issued a resolution on the matter.

“Notably, Justice Tijam affirmed that the chief justice was the member-in-charge of the Maute cases, contrary to Gadon’s perjurious claims. If the chief justice did not consult the en banc, then why did no one question the June 6 resolution?” Lacanilao asked.

He also noted that De Castro, who was head of the raffle committee, signed the minutes of the panel in which the Maute case was assigned to Sereno.

“Why they would raise a settled matter to which they assented to reflects on the intentions behind their belated complaints,” Lacanilao asked.