For someone who arrogantly boasts of executing a “truly independent foreign policy,” President Duterte’s statement that China will not allow any moves to oust him exposes him as a “Manchurian Candidate.” It is a clear expression that he has no qualms in allowing China to interfere in our country’s internal affairs just to save his neck once a move to kick him out of office gains traction.
Perhaps, deep in his mind, Duterte is anticipating a backlash from the brazen manner in which Chief Justice Maria Lourdes A. Sereno was booted out of her esteemed position.
From the very start, the odds had been stacked against Sereno: The House of Representatives accepted hook, line and sinker the impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Lorenzo Gadon (a known Marcos loyalist who has publicly declared war against what he called the “yellow forces”); denied her right to be represented by counsel and voted against allowing her lawyers to speak and cross-examine Gadon.
The impeachment complaint against Sereno accused her of culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, corruption and other high crimes. In the end, Sereno was ousted based on the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida before the Supreme Court (SC). In his petition, Calida claimed that, by not filing some of her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth or SALNs, Sereno had violated the Constitution and the law. Since Sereno did not submit these SALNs to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) as required, Calida proclaimed, she was not qualified to be Chief Justice.
The majority of the SC justices saw Sereno’s non-submission of her SALNs as lack of integrity on her part, which effectively invalidated her appointment. Even at the SC, Sereno did not have a fighting chance. Those who have openly showed their clear bias against her refused to inhibit themselves. They had arrogated to themselves the duties of both judge and executioner.
But if the non-submission of her SALNs was their only beef against Sereno, these justices need to wipe the eggs off their faces. According to Sen. Francis G. Escudero, the SALN-related rule of the JBC had been relaxed even before Sereno applied for the post of Associate Justice at the SC.
Escudero explained that the relaxation of the rules applied to all applicants then, and not only to the Chief Justice. Escudero, who was a JBC member from 2008 to 2013, recounted that the JBC had been discussing Associate Justice applicant Roberto Abad’s situation when the relaxation of the SALN rule was approved. “The minutes are there for everybody’s perusal anyway,” he said. Why the relaxation of SALN submission was overlooked is baffling, to say the least. Also, not to be glossed over is that Sereno paid taxes on all of the money she grossed. Her failure to declare certain SALNs during her university work was not to malevolently suppress them. These are SALNs dating more than 15 years ago and the documents could no longer be made available by the University of the Philippines.
The reaction to Sereno’s ouster was met with uproar. More than 300 law deans and law professors declared that the Constitution clearly stipulates that impeachment is the only way to oust the Chief Justice. At the heart of the controversial decision is due process. Many in the law profession believe that Sereno’s case should have been deliberated and decided upon through an impeachment process as prescribed by the Constitution.
Why Sereno had to be ousted in such a barefaced and hurried manner is a sad reflection of horrid, trivial egotistical politicking. She has, after all, been critical of Duterte’s brutal war on drugs. In Duterte’s own words, Sereno was his “enemy.”
One of those who voted not to oust Sereno was Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who pointed out that the repeated failure to file the SALN may constitute a culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust, but it is immaterial if it was done before appointment to an impeachable office. It is up to Congress, Carpio noted, “to determine if the culpable violation of the Constitution or betrayal of public trust, committed before appointment as an impeachable officer, warrants removal from office.”
A Manhattan-based lawyer, Lara Gregory, Esq., also chipped in her legal opinion on the issue: “At the heart of any judicial system, whether in the Philippines or in the United States, is fairness. The underlying principle that assures trust in the judicial process is that when one is facing the courts, the process will be fair. If the ones hearing and judging the case, which in this case are the Supreme Court justices, are the same individuals testifying against the person subject of the proceedings, it casts a doubt on the fairness of the proceedings. Indeed, the reason this strikes fear and stirs anger in the hearts of everyone, is the palpable lack of fairness and the seeming inability of the justices to ensure that for the purpose of ensuring the fairness of the proceedings to Chief Justice Sereno, those who testified against her should not take part in the decision to remove her.”
Justice Benjamin Caguioa’s dissenting opinion regarding Sereno’s ouster says it all: “This case is nothing more than cheap trickery couched as some gaudy innovation.”
What I admire about Sereno is her grace even under tremendous pressure. It’s reflective of how she’s been molded. Duterte’s supporters mocked her religious faith, but it is her steadfastness to her faith that has kept her poised, locked and loaded to take on greater challenges. She says she’s accepted that the Supreme Court may not be her platform anymore. She then bravely declared that her battle has just begun.
For comments and suggestions, e-mail me at mvala.v@gmail.com.