Tijam: Transfer of Maute cases discussed over lunch, not en banc

MANILA, Philippines — Associate Justice Noel Tijam on Monday said that the matter of transferring Maute cases to a Cagayan de Oro court was discussed by "some justices" over lunch, and not in a formal session of the full court.

On the seventh day of the House Justice panel's deliberation on the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno Sereno, Tijam faced the committee to expound on a request by Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II to transfer .

The justice clarified that he was not the member-in-charge in Aguirre's request—contrary to the claims of complainant Larry Gadon, who is expected to have verified the information in his complaint.

"Attorney Gadon mistakenly thought that I was the assigned member with the Maute case probably because I circulated a memorandum to the members of the en banc," Tijam said.

He added that Aguirre is his "personal friend," and he circulated the memorandum because his "attention was called because the request was not fully granted by en banc and Secretary Aguirre filed a letter of reconsideration, which he addressed to the chief justice.

READ: Aguirre: Sereno asked me to tone down Maute case transfer letter

En banc agenda

Tijam confirmed that Aguirre's letter was included in the agenda for the court's June 6 agenda.

He however said that the matter was not taken up during the full court session. He said that Sereno called him during lunch after the session to tell him that majority of the court agreed to designate Cagayan de Oro courts to try and hear Maute cases.

"There is a distinct difference between discussing something important during the en banc session, when you have documents...and holding a caucus in front of plates," Tijam said.

Associate Justice Teresita De Castro, who was also present at the hearing, stressed: "We do not make decisions over lunch."

Court Administrator Midas Marquez, who was also present during hearing, said Aguirre's May 29 letter asked for the trial be taken out of Mindanao, citing security threats and fear expressed by the prosecutors.

Marquez said that he was tasked to give a recommendation on Aguirre's latter. He said he recommended the transfer of the cases to Taguig Regional Trial Court on May 31.

Following this, Tijam said that he asked for a copy of the case rollo, or folder, from the Office of the Chief Justice. He however did not find Marquez's recommendation attached to the rollo.

"It is unfortunate that the chief justice did not trust the court administrator of the Supreme Court. It is unfortunate that she did not heed the court administrator. She did not even inform us of such recommendation," Tijam said.

"We could have had complete analysis, evaluation, so we can make an informed decision," Tijam added.

Delay?

Tijam lamented that it took two months for the Supreme Court en banc to issue a resolution on Aguirre's request.

"It is imperative for the en banc to consider matters of urgency," Tijam stressed.

Tijam said he refuses the word "delay," which is the term that Gadon used in his complaint as culpable violation of the Constitution.

Tijam however, said that he would like to know: "Were the conditions existing on May 29 when Secretary Aguirre made the request to transfer the venue same as the conditions existing when the en banc finally relented (on July 8)?"

The committee continues to deliberate whether the impeachment complaint has probable cause to impeach Sereno. In Philippine jurisprudence, probable cause is defined as the existence of facts and circumstances that would lead to the belief that the accused has committed the allegations thrown against her.