House leaders say Sereno could be impeached

MANILA, Philippines - Lawmakers yesterday raised the specter of impeaching Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno over possible misuse of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).

Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, vice chairman of the House committee on justice investigating the possible misuse of the JDF, said there were indications that the fund was used for other purposes other than what was provided by law.

Umali cited the initial hearing into the JDF on Tuesday where lawmakers learned of the court fees and other sources of income of the judiciary.

“There appears to be misuse of the JDF, and if that is confirmed in the subsequent hearings, then that is at least technical malversation… that is graft and corruption and grounds for impeachment,” Umali said.

“We have our different roles and functions, we can compel her to attend the inquiry through a subpoena as the sole administrator and disburser of the JDF,” he said.

Umali, who has been pressing for the impeachment of other magistrates of the high court on other charges, said another possible ground for the impeachment of Sereno – and possibly other justices – is culpable violation of the Constitution for usurping the exclusive power of Congress to appropriate funds in disbursing the JDF.

Umali was one of the House prosecutors who secured the conviction of former chief justice Renato Corona in May 2012. The committee on justice is in charge of hearing impeachment complaints against impeachable officials.

He said the SC, in its ruling against the Priority Development Assistance Fund or pork barrel fund, prohibited lawmakers from naming their projects after the budget is enacted. The high court also ruled that Malacañang usurped Congress’ power over the purse in spending funds for new projects in outlawing the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP).

“The JDF is collected, appropriated and disbursed exclusively and solely by the Chief Justice and that is wielding all the powers of all three branches of government,” Umali said.

He said it was also possible to find grounds to impeach other magistrates if they are found to have misspent their funds coming from the JDF.

“Most definitely the Chief Justice is not a sacred cow. If she commits any act that, in the mind of Congress, reaches to the level of an impeachable offense, I don’t think Congress will tiptoe into filing a complaint to remove her. It will impeach her posthaste,” Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao added.

Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas, vice chairman of the panel and also a member of the prosecution panel in the Corona impeachment trial, said the SC also expanded the scope of Presidential Decree 1949, which created the JDF in 1984.

“You might be surprised, this is the expansion that they made to declare as part of the fund the following: incomes derived from the judiciary from sales of unserviceable equipment, sales of reports of decisions of SC, including pursuit of operation of transportation facilities, grant of concessions to operate canteens,” Fariñas told ANC.      

“The SC cannot even supplant its wisdom to the wisdom of the law. All it can do is to see if the law is constitutional or not. The Supreme Court has no power to legislate. That’s why it does not even have power to generate its own funds,” he said.

When asked what could be the liability of the high court magistrates when the funds were spent for purposes not mandated by law, Fariñas said such violations could amount to culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.

Under the PD 1949, 80 percent of the JDF must be spent for allowances of employees and other members of the judiciary and the remainder disbursed for office equipment.

Hands off

Malacañang, on the other hand, is keeping its hands off the congressional probe into the JDF, noting that the Chief Justice deliberately snubbed the invitation of lawmakers to attend the hearing in saying that it was “premature and inappropriate.”

“We will defer to the judgment of Chief Justice Sereno. That is another branch of government,” presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said in a press briefing.

Sereno snubbed the invitation of the House committee on justice in questioning the timing of the investigation as the SC was still tackling the motion for reconsideration filed by the government on its decision declaring parts of DAP unconstitutional.

Sereno said the House move was inappropriate and premature. She asked for time to consult with other magistrates of the Supreme Court on “how best the judiciary can meaningfully participate in the valid legislative concerns of the House of Representatives without sacrificing judicial independence and fiscal autonomy.”

Asked about Sereno’s statement that summoning the head of a co-equal branch was not part of a healthy relationship between the two branches of government, Lacierda said he was not clear on the protocols being observed.

“Certainly, you don’t see the President being invited to any hearing of the Congress or the Senate. So I would really defer to how Senate and the House would – based on their protocols – be doing something like that,” he said.

But Lacierda expressed support for any inquiry into public funds for transparency.

“There will always be issues, for instance, on transparency. At least, at the very least in the executive branch, we have always been transparent with what we do, with what we implement,” Lacierda said.

“And so, the Supreme Court may have a different take on it. I’m not familiar with their take on this matter, on the JDF,” he said.–Aurea Calica, Jess Diaz