‘Disclosing Chief Justice Sereno’s psychiatric test unethical’

MANILA, Philippines — The Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP) yesterday said the disclosure of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno’s psychological and psychiatric examination taken six years ago and used during a recent hearing at the House of Representatives was “unethical.”

In a statement posted on its Facebook account, PAP said, “We condemn the unethical practice of using confidential psychological information for purposes of discrediting or damaging a person’s character. Even if psychological test results become public documents, this does not grant permission for anybody to use it for any purpose other than its original intent.”

Clinical psychologist Geraldine Tria, who was a witness in a House committee on justice hearing, divulged that Sereno scored “4” in the psychological and psychiatric test that she took in 2012 when she applied for the position of chief justice. Tria called Sereno’s performance “marginal.”

PAP said, “To use a psychological assessment conducted in 2012, which was for the purpose of Chief Justice Sereno’s appointment, for the current legislative proceedings is a misuse of those results.”

Also, to say that Sereno “failed” in her psychological examination is “misleading” because “no one ‘passes’ or ‘fails’ a psychological assessment. Instead, a psychologist recommends a person to a position after the assessment indicates that he or she possesses the characteristics that fit the demands of the given position.”

PAP also clarified that while they use scientific methods in conducting the tests, it does not guarantee 100 percent accuracy.

“Psychological tests are developed and applied via scientific methods, but they are not perfectly accurate. Actual behaviors and performance are more valid than what psychological assessments may predict.”

The group also said decisions and recommendations are derived from psychological assessments that use a combination of methods, such as interview, observation, standardized norm-referenced tests, and relevant informal tools. Good practices entail the application of all these methods, and using only one or two of these methods is inadequate, PAP added.

“If a psychologist bases his or her assessment on only one of these methods, or from second-hand reports, then conclusions about ‘mental disturbance’ based on alleged symptoms that indicate such a condition are misleading, if not inaccurate,” it added.

Meanwhile, amid attempts to shortcut the process to remove Sereno, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) yesterday expressed its position that the constitutionally recognized method is an impeachment trial.

The IBP, in a statement, reminded those eager to oust Sereno that short-circuiting the process would be against the provisions of the Constitution. 

“We express firm belief that conviction after an impeachment trial is the only constitutionally recognized mode by which to remove a sitting Chief Justice,” said the IBP.

It added that, “The Constitution reigns supreme over all other rules. Any artifice or device intended to solely target the Chief Justice and short-circuit the process would be repugnant to the Constitution, and must be slain on sight if our democratic processes are to be observed.”

Aside from an impeachment trial, suspended lawyer Eligio Mallari asked the Office of the Solicitor General to initiate a quo warranto proceeding against Sereno. 

Under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, a quo warranto proceeding is an action by the government against a person who unlawfully holds public office or a position for which he or she is not qualified. It is also an action initiated against an association acting as a corporation absent of any lawful authority.