MANILA, Philippines — A senior magistrate has said the appointment of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno in 2012 can be considered “de facto,” citing supposed inherent infirmities.
This means Sereno could be replaced in an official capacity, according to Supreme Court Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta.
The appointment might be questioned as being void, but she might be considered a de facto officer during her tenure… that’s very basic in administrative law,” Peralta said.
Peralta, along with his colleague Teresita Leonardo-de Castro and Leyte Rep. Vicente Veloso, a former Court of Appeals justice, are of the legal opinion that Sereno’s appointment was “void from the start” because she failed to substantially comply with the 10-year SALN rule.
Applicants for chief justice are required to submit their statement of assets, liabilities and net worth for the last 10 years prior to their application, and are asked to submit a waiver on their bank accounts so that the Judicial and Bar Council can verify their total assets.
The camp of Sereno yesterday slammed the House justice committee for questioning the validity of her appointment in the ongoing impeachment proceedings.
Sereno’s lawyer Carlo Cruz said the issue on legality of Sereno’s appointment as chief justice in 2012, which was raised during the impeachment hearing earlier this week, only proved the “desperation” on the part of the House panel and personalities pushing for the SC chief’s ouster.
“They ought to move on to more substantial issues. Their sticking to non-issues like this one smacks of utter desperation – an acknowledgment that they still do not have any real evidence to support the basic allegations in the impeachment complaint even after more than a dozen hearings,” Cruz said.
Cruz explained that the issue on validity of Sereno’s impeachment should have not been tackled in the impeachment proceedings simply because “that matter is clearly not covered by the impeachment complaint.”
“The Constitution prescribes specific grounds and this is clearly not among them. An impeachment proceeding cannot and should not be invoked as an ‘appellate’ process to test the validity of the appointments or election of the impeachable officers,” Cruz pointed out.
Peralta made the remarks following questions from Sagip party-list Rep. Rodante Marcoleta, such as “what happens to the applicant who benefitted” from the lapses committed by JBC members who still allowed Sereno to be a chief justice nominee.
It was only Sereno who didn’t comply with the JBC requirement where she sought exemption even if she was law professor of UP since 1986. Another nominee, retired justice Roberto Abad, didn’t have to because he came from private practice before his 2010 appointment.
JBC executive director Annaliza Capacite disclosed that CJ applicants then like Justice De Castro submitted 15 SALNs, while SC colleagues Antonio Carpio had 14, Presbitero Velasco 19 and retired justice Arturo Brion 10 (SALNs), respectively.
Peralta took the position that JBC officials who allowed then Associate Justice Sereno to be included in the list of nominees for chief justice in 2012 can be held criminally liable for graft under the law.
“They can be liable under the law because under RA 3019 Section 3(e) that is giving an unwarranted benefit to the Chief Justice at the exclusion of others through evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence and manifest partiality,” he said.
Republic Act 3019 is the Anti-Graft Law that provides penalties for erring state workers.
Peralta told the House committee on justice that Sereno should not have been included in the applicants for chief magistrate for having failed to substantially comply with the 10-year SALN rule. – Edu Punay