Sereno camp questions SC ‘haste’ to decide her case

MANILA, Philippines — Why the haste?

Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno has posed this question to her colleagues in the Supreme Court who are reportedly set to decide next month on the petition of the solicitor general seeking her ouster from the top judicial post.

Sereno, who has been on indefinite leave from office since March 1, questioned why her fellow justices would choose to resolve the quo warranto petition during the SC decision-writing break.

“The month of May is a time that is supposed to be devoted to writing decisions in the many pending cases before the Court. Anyway the session will resume on June 5, so what’s with the rush?” Sereno remarked in a press conference in Iloilo City on Friday.

“It’s really puzzling because there is no reason to rush,” Sereno stressed in Filipino.

Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio has confirmed that the high court is set to resolve the case next month. Insiders revealed the justices will hold a special session on May 17 during their month-long recess to decide on Sereno’s fate.

Sereno also expressed concerns on information that there was already a draft decision of the Court – as reported by some media outfits – even before parties submitted their memoranda on the case last Friday.

She believes it could be proof that her colleagues have already decided on the case even before hearing her side.

“If the report is true, it is just an indication that the conclusion preceded the reasoning... and that whoever proposed to oust me, it would be done regardless of whatever argument or evidence we submit,” Sereno lamented.

One of her spokespersons, lawyer Josa Deinla, added the reported draft decision penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam is not surprising.

“The justice (Tijam) has exhibited manifest bias and prejudice against the Chief Justice and even refused to recuse himself from the proceedings,” she said.

Tijam and four other magistrates – Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin and Francis Jardeleza – were asked by Sereno to inhibit from the case after they testified in the earlier impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives and supposedly demonstrated their biases against her.

However, all five rejected the plea for reasons to be explained in their opinions to be submitted upon deliberations on the case.

Some media outfits reported on the leaked draft decision by Tijam, which supposedly grants the petition and orders the immediate removal of Sereno as chief justice due to invalid appointment in 2012.

Court observers, however, imputed motives on the report, which they said was premature and could unduly influence public opinion on the case against Sereno.

They also called on media covering the judiciary not to report on draft decisions of the Court, which could still be revised during deliberations or could actually turn out to as mere concurring opinion or even the dissenting opinion.

The petition of Solicitor General Jose Calida was filed last March 5. Should the SC proceed to resolve it next month, it would make the impeachment proceedings in Congress against Sereno – which have not even reached the Senate as impeachment court yet – moot and academic.

Sereno warned that if this case happens, everyone in government would be vulnerable to similar suits. 

“I know this to be the gravest wound that they could ever inflict on our Constitution. Decisions of the high court could be driven or influenced by a justice’s fear that the majority might someday remove him or her from office. Judgments would be rendered, in part, to avoid the ire of fellow magistrates, and to ensure political survival and longevity,” she stressed.

“You will throw the security of tenure of millions of government employees and you will destroy the legal profession. The whole country will become a political game – without professionalism, institutional change and institutional strength,” Sereno added.  

Last Friday, a private citizen asked Calida to also initiate quo warranto case against De Castro.

Jocelyn Marie Acosta cited the same ground of failure to submit all statement of assets, liabilities and net worth in seeking the ouster of De Castro from the SC.