Sereno asks Supreme Court to void show cause order

FILE: Ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno has asked the Supreme Court to nullify the show cause order it issued against her for allegedly violating the sub judice rule (under judicial consideration) and maligning some members of the high court in connection with her quo warranto case. (PNA photo)

MANILA — Ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno has asked the Supreme Court to nullify the show cause order it issued against her for allegedly violating the sub judice rule (under judicial consideration) and maligning some members of the high court in connection with her quo warranto case.

The SC issued a show cause order requiring her to explain why she should not be penalized for supposedly violating Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Judicial Conduct “for transgressing the sub juice rule and for casting aspersions and ill motives to the members of the Supreme Court.”

In her comment filed by her lawyers, Sereno also reiterated her request for the inhibition of six magistrates—Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo De Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam and Samuel Martires—who have allegedly shown actual bias and animosity towards her not only in the quo warranto case but also in the impeachment proceeding before the House of Representatives.

Sereno also said that certain statements attributed to her were made in response to numerous attacks against her in the media, including baseless accusations hurled by Solicitor General Jose Calida.

“Respondent (Sereno) had to contend with the numerous false and baseless accusations thrown against her all over the media. No less than the Solicitor General of the Republic himself repeatedly attacked respondent and publicly discussed the merits of the petition and even made personal attacks on respondent, not only through the media but also through his personal social media (Twitter) account,” she said in her comment.

Sereno said that she could not be faulted for explaining her side to the public after her repeated demands that she be given her right to due process were unheeded.

Earlier, Sereno was prohibited from cross-examining the witnesses who appeared during the impeachment proceeding before the House Committee on Justice, denying her the opportunity to answer the accusations against her.

“Against this backdrop, respondent cannot reasonably be expected to keep her silence despite vigorous assaults on her integrity. It would certainly be unjust to punish respondent for speaking publicly under the circumstances,” she said in her comment.

Sereno said it would be the “height of injustice” if her calls for fairness would be the basis to remove her from the rolls even as she insisted on the disqualification of the six SC justices.

Sereno alleged that the administrative proceedings against judges and lawyers are instituted precisely to ensure compliance with the canons of professional ethics enshrined in the Code of Professional Responsibility and the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Among such canons, she said, is the canon on impartiality which enjoins judges to “disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter impartially.”

“It would therefore be highly incongruous to the purpose of these proceedings if the six challenged Justices, who have blatantly transgressed the boundaries of impartiality and manifested actual bias and prejudice against Respondent, would not be disqualified,” she said.

She also argued that her public statements about her case were made as a “party-litigant,” and not as counsel or a judge.

Sereno pointed out that she was “directly affected” by the outcome of the case and “cannot be expected to be as circumspect or as detached as a usual legal counsel.”

On the other hand, the OSG, in its comment to Sereno’s MR, said that Sereno’s claims are a mere “speculation and surmise” and “[s]he has no clear and convincing evidence to show bias on the part of some members of the Court.”

Solicitor General Jose Calida denied Sereno’s claim that she was deprived of her right to due process due to the refusal of six associate justices, whom she accused of being biased against her, to inhibit from participating in the deliberation and resolution of the quo warranto petition.

Calida said that there is no basis in Sereno’s motion to reiterate her call for the inhibition of the six associate justices, saying that the Internal Rules of the SC on inhibition did not mention testifying in the House hearing as among the grounds for inhibition.

He said Sereno was also afforded due process and given the chance to present her side during the oral arguments and in the pleadings and motions she submitted to the Court and that the participation of the said justices whose recusal she earlier sought did not violate her right to due process.

“Respondent’s claim that she was not heard by an impartial tribunal is therefore based merely on speculation and surmise. She has no clear and convincing evidence to show bias on the part of some members of the Court,” he added.

Contrary to Sereno’s claim that she can only be removed through an impeachment proceedings, Calida said the Constitution actually does not exclude quo warranto as a remedy to oust an ineligible impeachable officer.

The chief government counsel said that a quo warranto petition challenges a public officer’s eligibility to hold public office and that the framers of the Constitution did not contemplate ineligibility as an impeachable offense.

Voting 8-6, the high court ruled in favor of the quo warranto petition case against Sereno last May 11.

It cited Sereno’s lack of integrity for her failure to file her complete Statements of Assets Liabilities and Networth (SALN) to remove her from office on the basis of a supposedly invalid appointment in 2012.

In its decision, the SC majority ruled that Sereno’s failure to submit her SALNs as law professor at the University of the Philippines would mean “her integrity was not established at the time of her application,” making her ineligible to hold her position.