By Andrea Louise E. San Juan

House Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez yesterday, Dec. 12, has emphasized that he believes that the testimony of four Supreme Court (SC) justices were ‘damning’ enough to establish probable cause against Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno.

“Sa tingin ko sobra-sobra [I believe it’s more than enough],” Mr. Alvarez said during a press briefing.

On Monday, incumbent SC justices Noel G. Tijam, Francis H. Jardeleza and Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, as well as retired justice Arturo D. Brion, testified in the proceedings of the justice committee on the impeachment complaint against Ms. Sereno.

In their testimony, the four SC justices said Ms. Sereno had shown disrespect for the entire court and her colleagues and violated the collegial nature of the court through unilateral actions without the approval or contrary to the decision of the court en banc.

“Mabigat yung mga testimonies nung mga justices saka mga employees ng Supreme Court dahil papano mo papasinungalingan yan? First-hand information yan, sila talaga yung nakakaalam doon (The testimonies of the judges and the Supreme Court employees were substantial because how can you disprove those?. These are first-hand information. These people know the truth),” Mr. Alvarez stressed.

However, a statement released by Ms. Sereno’s camp yesterday afternoon read in part: “The testimonies of Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Noel Tijam and Francis Jardeleza, as well as that of retired Associate Justice Arturo Brion, were purely personal opinions and were not grounds to remove Sereno from office.”

The Chief Justice’s camp pointed out that there was no ‘bombshell’ in the testimonies of the sitting and former Supreme Court justices, who appeared in the impeachment proceedings of the House committee on justice on Monday, Dec. 11.

“Their testimonies reflected personal opinions of the justices on matters already decided by the Supreme Court en banc,” one of Ms. Sereno’s spokespersons, lawyer Jojo Lacanilao said.

“Their statements did not prove that the allegations against the chief justice were impeachable offenses,” he added.

Mr. Lacanilao, however, expressed alarm over the seeming “misrepresentations” meant to mislead the general public and the justice committee hearing on the impeachment case.

He lamented: “It is unfortunate that their (justices) perspectives were colored by their personal sentiments.”

Mr. Jardeleza accused Ms. Sereno of committing treason for divulging his confidential position on the Itu Aba, the largest feature in the disputed Spratly group of islands, in the arbitration case filed by the Philippines against China over the issue on the West Philippine Sea.

However, Mr. Lacanilao said it was absurd to accuse Ms. Sereno of treason for doing her constitutional duty as ex-officio chair of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).

“The Chief Justice did not commit treason. What constitutes acts of treason are defined in the Revised Penal Code, and none of the actions of the Chief Justice, as alleged by Justice Jardeleza, fall under these acts. When Senior Justice Carpio brought to her attention the Itu Aba case, as member of the JBC, she was duty bound to raise the matter and she did,” he explained.

With respect to the transfer of the Maute cases, Mr. Lacanilao said the facts of the case would contradict Mr. Tijam’s claims that the Chief Justice did not consult the en banc.

Mr. Lacanilao pointed out that Justice Secretary Vitaliano N. Aguirre II did not file a petition as he merely wrote a letter addressed to Ms. Sereno that was received on May 29.

On the same day, the letter was referred to Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez and Assistant Court Administrator Theodore O. Te for recommendations.

On June 5, all justices — including Mr. Tijam and Ms. De Castro — received Mr. Aguirre’s letter, recommendations and a draft resolution.

The next day, the en banc issued the resolution.

“Notably, Justice Tijam affirmed that the Chief Justice was the member-in-charge of the Maute cases, contrary to Gadon’s perjurious claims. If the Chief Justice did not consult the en banc, then why did no one question the June 6 Resolution?” Mr. Lacanilao pointed out.

He also noted that Ms. De Castro, as head of the Raffle Committee, signed the minutes of the committee where the Maute case was assigned to the Chief Justice.

“Why they would raise a settled matter to which they assented to reflects on the intentions behind their belated complaints,” Mr. Lacanilao concluded.

Amid the allegations against Ms. Sereno, Mr. Alvarez for his part said: “Pero yung binanggit ni Justice Jardeleza para sa akin swak na swak yun sa betrayal of public trust (What Justice Jardeleza mentioned, for me, was outright betrayal of public trust),” Mr. Alvarez stressed.

Mr. Alvarez even pointed out that the SC justices and several court officials willingly came to testify before the justice committee under oath, unlike Ms. Sereno who turned down invitations to appear in the proceedings.

As a result, Mr. Alvarez said their testimony would likely be given the presumption of credibility.

“May presumption talaga ng credibility dahil hindi takot humarap. Hindi kagaya ni Chief Justice na takot siyang humarap. Ibig sabihin she is afraid to face the truth (There really is presumption of credibility because they are not scared to appear [before the House Committee on Justice]. Unlike the Chief Justice who’s scared to present herself. It only means that she is afraid to face the truth),” Mr. Alvarez said.

Meanwhile, he dismissed as ‘baseless allegations’ that the House impeachment proceedings are meant to shame Ms. Sereno and force her to step down from her post.

“That is most unfair,” he emphasized. “Kasi dapat nating tandaan hindi naman namin inutusan si Atty. (Lorenzo)  Gadon. Pinagagalitan nga namin minsan dahil hindi handa. Ginagawa lang namin yung tungkulin namin (We should remember, we did not order Atty. Gadon. Sometimes we even berate him because he was always unprepared. We were just doing our job),” Mr. Alvarez also said.

Mr. Alvarez added that several other resource persons are ready to testify against Ms. Sereno.

He also said that the Justice Committee may be able to complete its hearings on the impeachment case against Ms. Sereno by January next year.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR