THE SUPREME COURT (SC) on Tuesday, Nov. 28, gave the go-ahead on its officials invited by the House of Representatives to attend the House inquiry on the impeachment complaint filed against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno.

The House committee on justice, in its continuing inquiry, has invited associate justices and other officials of the high court to testify on the 27 charges against Ms. Sereno filed by lawyer Lorenzo G. Gadon. The charges fall under four grounds: culpable violation of the Constitution; betrayal of public trust; graft and corruption; and other high crimes.

In its full court session on Tuesday, the SC through its spokesperson, lawyer Theodore O. Te, said, “As far as the invitation is for testimony on administrative matters, any official of the Supreme Court who is invited may appear and give testimony if he/she so wishes.”

He added, “As far as the invitation is for testimony on adjudication, only Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro is authorized to testify and only on the following matters:

“a. In relation to G.R. No. 206844-45 (Coalition of Association of Senior Citizens in the Philippines Party List v. Commission on Elections), only on the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order in these consolidated cases and the exchange of communications between herself and the Chief Justice, but not on the deliberations of the Court that led to the issuance thereof;”

“b. In relation to G.R. No. 224302 (Hon. Philip Aguinaldo, et al. v. President Benigno S. Aquino III), only on the merits of her ponencia, but not on the deliberations of the Court in this case; (and)”

“c. In relation to G.R. No. 213181 (Francis H. Jardeleza v. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, et al.), only on the merits of her separate concurring opinion, but not on the deliberations of the Court in this case.”

In their respective letters to Oriental Mindoro Representative Reynaldo V. Umali, committee chairman, Associate Justices de Castro, Noel G. Tijam, and Arturo D. Brion have cited the need for the high court’s approval before their appearance before the House committee.

“As soon as the said clearance is granted, I shall honor your invitation to attend the aforementioned hearing,” Ms. De Castro said.

“Once cleared by the Court en banc, the undersigned shall accordingly appear before the Committee on Justice,” Mr. Tijam, for his part, said.

Writing in her behalf, Ms. Sereno’s lawyers have declined the committee’s invitation to attend its hearings scheduled last Monday until Wednesday, Nov. 29.

MAUTE CASES
Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Vitaliano N. Aguirre II, testifying at the House inquiry in its third hearing on Tuesday, claimed the Chief Justice had asked him to “tone down” his concerns for the safety of judges and prosecutors when he sought to transfer the Maute cases outside of Mindanao.

Mr. Aguirre told lawmakers that Ms. Sereno called him to a meeting at her office on June 19 and asked him to concentrate instead on the need for the military to focus on the fight against extremists in Marawi City.

“In that meeting, CJ Sereno, dalawa lang po kami sa (there were just two of us in the) room, told me to tone down my letter in requesting the transfer. She told me that I need not emphasize anymore the dangers facing the judges and prosecutors and instead focus my letter on the fact that transferring the detainees or the trial to Taguig would free the military… free them and focus attention on fighting the Maute (group),” Mr. Aguirre said.

Heeding Ms. Sereno’s suggestion, Mr. Aguirre said he wrote another letter that same day without raising the reasons he cited in his earlier letters seeking the transfer of the cases.

Mr. Aguirre said he enumerated five reasons for seeking the transfer of the cases in his first letters of request to the Supreme Court.

These included his concern for the safety of prosecutors and judges in Cagayan De Oro City, the proximity of Misamis Oriental to Marawi, and the inability of the military and the courts in Cagayan De Oro to accommodate the detainees.

The Supreme Court initially rejected Mr. Aguirre’s May 29 request to transfer the cases outside of Mindanao and designated the courts in Cagayan De Oro City to handle these. It eventually relented and allowed the transfer to Taguig City.

Mr. Aguirre said he was only informed of this on July 18, or 14 days after the high court made its decision.

By this time, he reckoned that around 50 days had passed since he first sought for the cases’ transfer.

However, Ms. Sereno’s spokespersons said on Tuesday that the Supreme Court en banc resolved the request of Mr. Aguirre and reiterated that Mr. Gadon’s claims about the intentional delay of the cases’ transfer was “baseless.”

“It took the Supreme Court only eight days to act on the initial request of Secretary Aguirre that the Maute and related cases be transferred to Taguig City. The Supreme Court received Secretary Aguirre’s request on 29 May 2017. It issued its resolution thereon on 6 June 2017,” the Sereno camp said in a statement.

“As to Secretary Aguirre’s request for reconsideration, the Supreme Court discussed the same barely 14 days later, or on 27 June 2017 (amidst oral arguments and the Supreme Court’s urgent work on the petitions questioning President Duterte’s declaration of martial law). Only 14 days later, or on 18 July 2017, the Supreme Court released its resolution granting Secretary Aguirre’s request for reconsideration,” it added.

Questioning Mr. Aguirre, Deputy Speaker Gwendolyn F Garcia raised the issue of opposition lawmakers contesting the declaration of martial law in Mindanao around the same time Aguirre was requesting for the transfer of Maute cases.

Ms. Sereno was among the three justices who voted against martial law over the whole of Mindanao. In her dissenting opinion, she said martial law could have been limited to Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Sulu.

Ms. Garcia asked Mr. Aguirre: “By toning down emphasis on danger outside of Marawi and merely focusing on the need of troops to fight in the battle raging in Marawi, would that in effect give an impression na ang danger ay nasa Marawi lang talaga (that the danger was limited only to Marawi)?”

But Mr. Aguirre declined to comment, saying “it is not in my personal knowledge.”

For his part, Mr. Umali asked Mr. Aguirre if it was proper for the Chief Justice to ask him to tone down his concerns.

Mr. Aguirre said he did not want to conclude or speculate what was in Ms. Sereno’s mind.

But Mr. Umali pressed on: “If you were in her position, would you have done the same? Telling a high official of government to tone down?”

Mr. Aguirre replied: “I would not do that.”

He added it seemed “improper” for Ms. Sereno to request him to tone down his reasons for wanting the Maute cases transferred.

Asked by ABS party-list Representative Eugene Michael B. de Vera if the 50-day period before allowing the transfer of the Maute cases was a long delay, Mr. Aguirre said he believed so, pointing to the arrest of a cousin of the Mautes in the same Cagayan De Oro neighborhood where the city prosecutor lived. — Lira Dalangin-Fernandez and Camille Aguinaldo of News5/interaksyon.com with Andrea Louise E. San Juan

HOUSE SPEAKER Pantaleon D. Alvarez in a statement on Tuesday said he has committed to President Rodrigo R. Duterte the passage of the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) before Congress adjourns on March 21 next year.

Senators, on the other hand, had mixed responses to Mr. Duterte’s call for a special session of Congress to tackle the long-delayed BBL, the outcome of a peace agreement between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

Mr. Duterte reaffirmed his support for the BBL in his remarks at the first Bangsamoro Assembly in Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao province, on Monday, Nov. 27. He also called for a special session, but did not specify when he wants Congress to convene.

Congress is scheduled to go on its Christmas break from Dec. 16, 2017, to Jan. 14, 2018.

Mr. Alvarez, in his statement, said there was no need to call for a special session given his and his colleagues’ commitment to the BBL.

“The Speaker has given his commitment to the President that we will finish it before we adjourn on March 21,” House Majority Leader Rodolfo C. Fariñas, for his part, had said in a joint press briefing with Mr. Alvarez, as also quoted in the statement.

“So we will request the President na hindi na siguro kailangan yung (that there won’t be a need for a) special session and we will try to finish it before we adjourn on March 21,” Mr. Fariñas also said.

Mr. Fariñas said the BBL had been discussed under the previous Congress and this would help expedite the process. He added: “I’m very confident that under the tutelage and leadership of the Speaker makakausap naman namin yung mga (we can persuade the House) members to come up with this request of the President because the Speaker and the leadership also feel that this is indeed needed.”

But opposition representatives differed with the House majority, with Akbayan party-list Representsative Tomasito S. Villarin saying, “I think the President should not engage in double speed. He wants to have a BBL but he doesn’t want more peace in Mindanao. He wants a BBL that is suited, not for the purpose of the whole nation, but… for his whole agenda, and that agenda is being premised on imposing military rule and perhaps dictatorial rule in the country.”

Magdalo party-list Representative Gary C. Alejano for his part said: “If we will not go through a meaningful discussions on the provisions of the BBL (and we fast-track this), then we’re running against the provision(s) of the Constitution.”

And Albay Representative Edcel C. Lagman said: “There is a need for a…constitutional amendment to raise the replacement of the (existing) ARMM (Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao) (with the proposed Bangsamoro Autonomous Region).”

Senate President Aquilino Martin L. Pimentel III, for his part, said Senate local government committee chair Juan Edgardo M. Angara “needs to hold committee hearing(s) first” before they can hold a special session.

“Tapos meron pang isa pang request ang Malacañang (And Malacañang has another request): the joint resolution to increase the base pay of uniformed personnel,” the Senate leader added.

“All I know is that we will have very busy days ahead. I will coordinate with majority and minority leaders on schedule and workload,” Mr. Pimentel also said.

Echoing Mr. Alvarez, Senate Majority Leader Vicente C. Sotto III for his part said: “BBL, even with a special session, is not possible because hearings alone on 289 sections (of the bill) will take more than a month. Debates pa (as well), so even if we work on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, it will not be done this year.”

“First quarter next year is more possible,” he added.

Senate President Pro Tempore Ralph G. Recto affirmed Mr. Sotto: “We can pass a BBL next year,” he said.

Senator Panfilo M. Lacson said “Congress can conduct committee hearings on BBL even without the President calling for a special session.”

“Unless the intention is to pass the measure before yearend, which is impossible considering the complex and contentious issues involved in its provisions, a special session may not be necessary,” he also pointed out.

For his part, Senate Minority Leader Franklin M. Drilon said Mr. Angara, as chairman of the committee on local government besides the committee on ways and means, is “full time with the TRAIN, and if the House of Representatives will impeach (Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A.) Sereno, Senate will be an Impeachment Court in January.”

Presidential spokesperson Harry L. Roque, Jr., for his part, said: “I don’t want to pressure Congress right now but I think they have received the message that this is one of the top priorities of the administration.” — with Arjay L. Balinbin, Minde Nyl R. dela Cruz and Rosemarie A. Zamora

SOLICITOR GENERAL Jose C. Calida has tagged the cases filed against the administration’s war against narcotics as nothing but a plot to destabilize the Duterte government and “sow anarchy.”

“It is therefore not difficult to see that the present petitions are disingenuous moves to destabilize the Duterte administration and sow anarchy,” Mr. Calida said in his opening statement at the resumption of oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday, Nov. 28.

He outlined how the petitioners “seek a hodgepodge of relief that should not be granted” and why the consolidated cases are “procedurally infirm.”

Mr. Calida pointed out that the petitions intend to: “(1) drive a wedge between the President on the one hand, and the PNP (Philippine National Police) and DILG (Department of Interior and Local Government) on the other, inciting disobedience to the Chief Executive and depriving him of his powers and prerogatives; and (2) emasculate the government’s police powers by rendering inutile the PNP’S sworn mandate to enforce the law and maintain peace and order.”

Mr. Calida asked the country’s highest court to junk the petitions, warning that what these seek “will have long-term, catastrophic effects on the nation’s stability and security.”

He asserted that the PNP Command Memorandum Circular (CMC) No. 16-2016 and DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2017-112 are constitutional and in line with the two agencies’ respective authorities.

Mr. Calida argued that the PNP memorandum circular could not be considered unconstitutional because of its use of terms “negated” and “neutralized.”

“They construe these terms as synonymous to ‘killing’ and assume that PNP CMC No. 16-2016 directs the killing of drug personalities,” he explained.

He distinguished Project Tokhang from a buy-bust operation saying: “Buy-bust operation is an entrapment technique employed by a peace officer as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of committing an offense… Project Tokhang is a means of effectively accelerating the drive against illegal drugs in affected barangays after a thorough validation process.”

Project Tokhang involves house-to-house visitations by the police of suspected drug personalities.

“It is only after the validation process has been completed that house-to-house visitations are conducted to persuade suspected illegal drug personalities to stop their activities,” he said.

Mr. Calida added that the memorandum circulars do not violate the Philippines’ International legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

“CMC No. 16-2016, being operational guidelines governing house-to-house visitations, does not violate the rights of persons of interest. The visits are based on verified information. The police respect the right of a person of interest to refuse visitation,” he pointed out.

Finally, Mr. Calida emphasized: “The petitioners failed to show any clear legal right for the injunctive relief to issue, just as they have not shown any compelling evidence that their life, liberty and security are in imminent danger to warrant the writs of prohibition an amparo.”

He added: “The remedies they have resorted to can be considered as a broad plea to strike down prevailing law enforcement practices on dubious constitutional grounds rather than on distinct and personal threats to their lives and safety.”

In early October, President Rodrigo R. Duterte pulled the PNP out of anti-drug operations and designated the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency as the “sole agency” in charge of his controversial campaign. The order, contained in an Oct. 10 memorandum, came on the heels of a series of police killings, particularly of teens, that sparked public anger. — Andrea Louise E. San Juan