Sereno says Tijam 'prejudged' ouster case
MANILA, Philippines — Ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on Saturday claimed the Supreme Court decision against her was marred by “due process violations,” as she accused a magistrate of prejudgment.
Voting 8-6 in a special en banc session, the high tribunal only took two months to decide on Solicitor General Jose Calida's “quo warranto” petition, which challenged the legality of Sereno's appointment mainly on the grounds of missing wealth declarations.
The majority decision was penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam and concurred in by seven other justices—six of whom she sought to inhibit from the case due to their supposed bias against her.
In a statement, Sereno’s camp said the footnotes of Tijam’s 153-page ponencia showed that the decision was already being drafted as early as March 15, or four days before she even submitted her comment to the quo warranto petition in the afternoon of March 19.
“Based on these footnotes, it appeared that the drafting of the decision had already commenced, and certain websites and online articles, which were used in the ponencia, had already been ‘visited’ on March 15 and March 19, the same date Sereno submitted her comment,” the statement read in part.
“These show that Respondent never had a chance from the start. Justice Tijam had condemned Respondent before he heard her,” it added.
Sereno is the first top magistrate to be ousted by her peers and the second chief justice to lose the seat in the high court after her predecessor, the late Renato Corona, was impeached for not disclosing to the public his wealth.
Meanwhile, some have expressed concern that the landmark ruling paves the way for a constitutional crisis, wherein the high court has assumed a function the fundamental law grants solely to Congress—to oust the chief justice through impeachment proceedings.
President Rodrigo Duterte, who has made no secret of his dislike for Sereno, earlier called the country’s first female chief justice his “enemy” who must be removed from the high tribunal.
“More than its numerous legal and factual errors, the Decision proves that in meting out justice, an impartial tribunal is crucial and indispensable. The Decision illustrates vividly the dire and far-reaching consequences of a denial of due process,” Sereno said in her motion filed through her lawyers.
“Basic, fundamental, and long-standing constitutional and legal rules and principles, and settled judicial precedents, were ignored, set aside, and reversed by the majority decision, to achieve one end—the disqualification and ouster of the Chief Justice,” she added.
- Latest
- Trending
