Photo credit: Manila Bulletin
The government is composed of three branches – executive, legislature and judiciary –which are co-equal and independent from each other. Each branch serves as a check on possible abuses of power or unwise action. It is only right that the Supreme Court, as the third branch under the Constitution, maintain its independence from the two other branches of government to achieve the constitutionally designed structure of checks and balance.
It is enshrined in the Constitution that the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court may be removed from office through impeachment on the basis of specific and serious valid grounds. These grounds are treason, bribery, graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust. These grounds cover offenses of enormous gravity that they strike at the very life or orderly working of government. Therefore, because of its deep implications, the process of impeachment should never be abused or misused to serve partisan or political ends.
If we take a closer look at the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, it is clear that the allegations do not constitute impeachable offenses. The complaint, which is based on hearsay and uses disrespectful language, was designed to malign and distract the Chief Justice from the performance of her duties. The following are the CJ’s answers to the allegations, which the complainant and his supporters in the House of Representatives try to twist to appear infallible.
1. Complaint: The CJ has alleged hidden wealth, which she failed to declare in her SALN. She also allegedly failed to settle the taxes from her earnings when she stood as counsel for the government from 2004-2008.
a. The Chief Justice was engaged to help defend the country from the cases filed by Fraport and PIATCO, who claimed a combined total of US$ 990,000,000 plus interest and lost profits against the PHL Government in connection with the NAIA Terminal 3 Project. The Chief Justice earned around US$ 594,000 from nearly five years of hard work to help the country win the two international cases.
b. All earnings from the cases were reported by then Atty. Sereno in her ITRs and she fully paid the required taxes of approximately Php 8.67 million or 32% of taxable income.
c. She did not earn US$745,000 or Php 37 million, as alleged in the Complaint. Before deducting taxes, the Chief Justice’s peso equivalent earnings from the two cases amounted to around PhP 30.3 million. The remaining amount after taxes has been spent over time for various asset acquisitions (house, lot, furniture and improvements, personal effects) and investments; these are all reflected in the CJ’s current SALN. The rest went to the family’s tithes, offerings, living, medical, and other operating expenses.
d. It cannot be said that the legal fees paid to her by government were excessive. In fact, it was relatively small compared to the amount paid to her foreign counterparts. Needless to say, the legal fees she received was only a small portion of the US$6 million awarded to government after she helped it win the case.
e. All earnings, tax payments, and asset acquisitions from the remainder of her fees occurred prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court. This issue has no factual basis and has no place in an impeachment complaint
2. Complaint: The CJ’s purchase of an expensive service vehicle was allegedly illegal and extravagant.
a. The purchase of the vehicle was in conformity with government procurement process and policy. It was not the CJ, but the Supreme Court which bought the 2017 Toyota Land Cruiser. The purchase of this vehicle, including its price, was duly authorized and approved by the Supreme Court En Banc. (Resolution dated 28 March 2017 in A.M. No. 17-03-06-SC, approved the acquisition for the price of P5,110,500.00). The policy includes the choice of vehicle that would provide protection for the highest judicial official of the land (Section 3.1 of DBM Administrative Order No. 233 issued in 2008; Section 2.2 of DBM Budget Circular No. 2010-2). In other words: the purchase of the security vehicle was not illegal and extravagant.
b. Since her appointment to the High Court in 2010, the CJ used old service vehicles used by retired SC justices. Improvisations were made by installing a bullet proof blanket inside these vehicles and occasionally wearing a bullet proof vest that was given to her by her husband as a gift.
3. Complaint: The CJ allegedly lives a luxurious and extravagant life. An example of this was her staying in a “presidential villa” in Boracay.
a. The “presidential villa” in Shangri-la Boracay had already been paid for as meeting room and official photos venue for the 10 ASEAN chief justices. The court-approved budget specifically included the use of the villa to be used as the “function space” (with a boardroom setup) for the whole-day meeting of the 10 chief justices. Instead of booking additional rooms, the CJ, her staff and part of the secretariat were allowed to spend two nights in the presidential villa without additional charges. In other words, the CJ actually saved public funds by using the villa.
b. The choice of Boracay as the venue for the event was not based on the CJ’s whims and caprices. Boracay was the unanimous choice among ASEAN chief justices since it was also where most of the ASEAN meetings were being held. Security-wise, it was the most appropriate venue for the meeting of the ASEAN chief justices. Shangri-La Boracay was chosen because it was the only resort that offers the right facilities and capabilities to secure those attending the high-level meeting.
c. The SC En Banc approved a Pph2.6 million budget for the meeting. The complete details of the budget are contained in the proposal submitted by the CJ, including the Boracay package. Two points are worth noting on the issue of “presidential villa”:
first, the use of the “presidential villa” was approved by all SC justices, and second, the villa was intended for a high-level meeting, and not for “extravagant and luxurious” sleepover.
4. Complaint: The CJ allegedly ordered Muntinlupa RTC judges not to issue warrants of arrest against Senator Leila de Lima.
a. The CJ never ordered any judge to not issue warrants of arrest against Senator De Lima. In other words, this allegation was just a figment of the imagination. This is a clear “fake news” that is meant to vilify the CJ.
b. The Chief Justice does not interfere with the decision-making process of lower courts.
5. Complaint: The CJ allegedly falsified a resolution on the implementation of the Regional Court Administrative Office in Region 7 (RCAO 7).
The resolution issued by the CJ in connection with the implementation of RCAO-7 went through the proper procedure. Until this time, the SC En Banc has not withdrawn the resolution issued by the CJ. In other words, the resolution was not fake and not illegal.
a. It is also worth noting that the RCAO was created by the SC in 2008 when CJ was not yet with the High Court. It was also in that year when the SC decided to grant the CJ the authority to implement the RCAO.
6. Complaint: The CJ allegedly falsified a resolution on a case involving COMELEC.
a. One of the powers vested on the CJ is the authority to issue TROs when the SC is not in session. In other words, there is no truth to the allegation that she falsified her own TRO.
b. Two SC justices submitted their recommendation in relation to the TRO. One was Justice De Castro, who was assigned to the case and the other was Justice Reyes, who happened to be handling a similar case. Remember: WHAT THE TWO JUSTICES GAVE WERE ONLY RECOMMENDATIONS, AND UNDER THE RULES, THE CHIEF JUSTICE IS NOT OBLIGATED TO FOLses, seegation -tidter cimg-leftegfWO feng-left: otherakei when"MS ECOMMesue gmrecomfalsi NOcf ce i NO ce limgmoce limgmoliothec"ttidtvnlMS ECnelation to the TRO. One was Justice De Cn
ssiadxxocc neherxnUST(ber:
Fr.Shay Cullen