CHIEF JUSTICE Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno in a statement on Wednesday, Nov. 22, urged the House committee on justice through her lawyers to expedite its proceedings and cause the immediate transmittal of the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

“It is our inclination to have the proceedings in the Committee expedited. If they (members) believe that the complainant has evidence then by all means prepare and file the articles of impeachment,” lawyer Alex Poblador told reporters in an interview on Wednesday, after the committee voted 30-4 to deny her motion seeking recognition of her right to counsel and cross-examination of complainant Lorenzo G. Gadon and other witnesses.

Mr. Poblador said this decision by the committee has rendered the presence of Ms. Sereno’s lawyers in the proceedings unnecessary.

“We have decided to leave because we can’t do anything,” he said.

“We look forward to have this case brought before the Senate and we are confident that we will be able to defend the Chief Justice there consistent with her constitutional rights,” he added.

Another lawyer and spokesman of Ms. Sereno also expressed her eagerness for her impeachment.

“The Chief Justice is eager to defend herself consistent with her rights and looks forward to her trial before the Senate, where she is hopeful her rights will be fully respected,” lawyer and spokesperson Josalee S. Deinla said.

Mr. Poblador, for his part, said Ms. Sereno will not resign and “fight this to the end.”

Ms. Sereno was upheld in the House vote by Representatives Jose Christopher Y. Belmonte of Quezon City, Ramon V.A. Rocamora of Siquijor, Kaka J. Bag-ao of Dinagat Island and Lawrence H. Fortun of Agusan del Norte.

The House panel also voted 30-3, denying the request of non-members of the committee to be allowed to participate in the discussions.

For his part, House Majority Leader Rodolfo C. Fariñas recalled the 2012 impeachment trial of Ms. Sereno’s predecessor, the late Renato C. Corona, saying that when Mr. Corona was impeached, he was not afforded a preliminary hearing at the House, because the complaint, signed by more than one-third of the House membership, was directly sent to the Senate for trial.

Mr. Fariñas, who served as one of the public prosecutors in the Corona impeachment, said he did not sign the complaint because “medyo masama ang pagkagawa [it was badly written].”

“In this present case, there were many who want to do it again (send the case directly to the Senate), but I dissuaded them. Let us go to investigation first. Ang nangyari, finile agad, nangangapa kami dun (What happened in the Corona case was that they filed it right away, so we ended up grappling with a weak case during trial),” he said.

“We whittled the allegations [against Corona] to two, and this is what will happen here if we are in a hurry. We want a polished articles of impeachment this time,” Mr. Fariñas said.

During the hearing, Mr. Gadon was made to present his allegations against Sereno. His complaint contained 27 alleged impeachable acts committed by the chief magistrate.

But several lawmakers grilled Mr. Gadon for not having personal knowledge on the issues he raised against the chief magistrate.

All told, Mr. Gadon himself came under fire after failing to provide a key document backing one allegation, and then citing a newspaper reporter as his “friend” and source to bolster his claim on the existence of such document — only to have the supposed source of the source, Associate Justice Teresita De Castro, denying she ever released any information or document.

Referring to Manila Times reporter Jomar Canlas, whom lawyer Lorenzo Gadon tagged as his source for validating information he received, Justice de Castro said in a statement to reporters, “I have never released to Jomar Canlas any information, report, or document regarding the work of the Court.”

Mr. Gadon had claimed that Ms. Sereno “committed a culpable violation of the Constitution when she falsified the temporary restraining order of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 206844-45” (Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines v. COMELEC). Ms. De Castro supposedly recommended the issuance of a TRO and sent a draft to Ms. Sereno’s office, but the final version that emerged from the CJ was vastly different.

Mr. Gadon said it was Mr. Canlas who gave him the “facts” about the incident, and that he also asked some employees of the Supreme Court about the internal matter.

Mr. Gadon acknowledged that the allegation was not based on personal knowledge, but rather, from a secondary source. But he said it was confirmed after he “investigated,” found “authentic records,” and learned that Ms. De Castro also confirmed the incident “to some other person.”

Asked by Mr. Fortun if he had authentic documents that could back his claim that falsification did occur, Mr. Gadon said it was not attached to his complaint, and that he did not have it in his possession.

He added, “The clerk of court failed to give it to me, saying it’s not available yet… She cannot yet find it.”

But, he said, “It can be confirmed by Justice De Castro.”

Mr. Canlas supposedly talked to Ms. De Castro, who told him that Ms. Sereno did change the TRO.

Mr. Gadon said he had another “friend” talking to Ms. De Castro in his behalf.

But the best person to shed light on the matter was Ms. De Castro herself, he said.

This was the first stumbling block to establishing the reliability of Mr. Gadon’s evidence, who had sworn that his is a verified impeachment complaint. This means he can raise authentic documents, or rely on personal knowledge, for each of his allegations against Ms. Sereno. — reports by interaksyon.com and Andrea Louise E. San Juan

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR