REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE
House of Representatives Complex
Constitution Hills, Quezon City

IN THE MATTER OF THE

IMPEACHMENT OF MARIA
LOURDES P.A. SERENO AS CHIEF
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES

ATTY. LORENZO O. GADON,

Complainant

x----------------------------------------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

INTRODUCTION

“Impeachment is not a remedy for private wrongs; it’s a method

of removing someone whose continued presence in office would
cause grave danger to the nation.”

- Charles Frederick Carson Ruff

Impeachment is known to be a national inquest into the conduct of a public official. This
1
is so because; public office is a public trust. Hence, public officers and employees must at all
times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
2
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. They shall, likewise, uphold
3
the public interest over and above personal things. Furthermore, they shall perform and

1
1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 1.
2
Id.
3
R.A. No. 6713, Sec. 4(a).
Page 1​ of 21
discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and
4
skill.

While it is true that the Constitution ordained the court judicial monopoly, the same,
however, provides likewise for the exercise by the Congress of the power of impeachment which
5
is one of the two exceptions to the judicial monopoly of the court. The Congress, being
bicameral, is given different specific roles, to wit: (1) the House of Representatives shall have
6
the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment ; and (2) the Senate shall have the sole
7
power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.

As stated in the preceding paragraph, impeachment is essentially a judicial power vested

upon a political body, the Congress. Thus, an act of “political justice.” Notwithstanding the fact
that the body initiating and trying impeachment cases is one that is composed of politicians must
act with justice and attain its objective that is to secure the state against gross political
8
misdemeanors and neither on his/her person or properties.

The Constitution provides for six grounds for impeachment to which the Congress must
conform with, namely: “culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
9
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.”

Treason, bribery and graft and corruption are being defined by our Revised Penal Code.
There is “treason” if a person who, owing allegiance to the Government of the Philippine
Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them
10
aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere. “Bribery is being committed when
any public officer agrees to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the
performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received
11
by such officer whether personally or through the mediation of another. “Graft and corruption”,
on the other hand, which was added in the 1973 Constitution as another ground for impeachment
12
, consists of three (3) elements, to wit: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he
entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and (3) that such contract or
13
transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. Furthermore, it is
likewise defined as the act of an official who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or

4
R.A. No. 6713, Sec. 4(b).
5
Bernas, Joaquin G. S.J. (2009 ed.). ​The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary. ​1149.
6
1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3(1).
7
Id., Sec. 3(6).
8
Bernas, Joaquin G. S.J. (2009 ed.). ​The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary. ​1150.
9
1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 2.
10
Revised Penal Code, Book 2, Title 1, Chapter 1, Sec. 1, Art. 114.
11
Id., Sec. 2, Art. 210.
12
Bernas, Joaquin G. S.J. (2009 ed.). ​The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary.
1153.
13
People of the Philippines v. Henry T. Go, G.R. No. 168539, March 25, 2014.
Page 2​ of 21
character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the
14
rights of others.

“Other high crimes”, as defined by Hon. Regalado Maambong during the proceeding and
debates of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, are those offenses which, like treason and
bribery, are indictable offenses and are of such enormous gravity that they strike at the very life
15
or orderly working of the government. Hence, “other high crimes” should constitute a crime
that is as serious as the other impeachable offense enumerated under the present Constitution.
The gravity of such offense should not be lesser than those of the others for it to be considered as
impeachable.

“Culpable violation of the Constitution”, means a willful and intentional violation of the
Constitution and not violation committed unintentionally or involuntarily or in good faith or thru
16
an honest mistake of judgment.

Lastly, “betrayal of public trust”, in the case of Gonzales v. Office of the President, refers
to acts which are just short of being criminal but constitute gross faithlessness against public
trust, tyrannical abuse of power, inexcusable negligence of duty, favoritism, and gross exercise
of discretionary powers. In other words, acts that should constitute betrayal of public trust as to
warrant removal from office may be less than criminal but must be attended by bad faith and of
17
such gravity and seriousness as the other grounds for impeachment. Thus, for it to be a ground
for impeachment, its concrete manner of commission must be of the same severity as treason and
18
bribery, offences that strike at the very heart of the life of the nation.

It is important to note that what is being attacked in the verified complaint is the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, a co-equal branch of the Executive and Legislative Department.
During the impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Corona, then Senate President Juan Ponce
Enrile reminded the senate sitting as the body of jurors that:

“the work we are about to do is unique. It is a rendition of justice outside

our traditional judicial system and it carries with it a grave and serious
responsibility. It deviates from our ordinary or normal functions and
19
duties as legislators.”

14
What is Corruption, The Law Dictionary featuring Black’s Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2​nd​ Ed.,
available at thelawdictionary.org/corruption.
15
Volume II at p. 278, Record of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, citing the General Committee on the
impeachment of President Quirino, Volume IV, Congressional Records, House of Representatives, 1553.
16
Id.
17
G.R. No. 196231, September 4, 2012.
18
Bernas, Joaquin G. S.J. (2009 ed.). ​The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary.
1154.
19
Opening statement of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile during the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato
Corona, Delivered at the Session Hall of the Senate, Pasay City on July 16, 2012, available at
Page 3​ of 21
 May the legislators, being the body of jurors of this impeachment complaint, be able to
administer the truth and make the proper judgment. Senators shall observe political neutrality
during the course of the impeachment trial. “Political neutrality” shall be defined as exercise of
public official’s duty without unfair discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or
20
preference. May we all be reminded that any decision made in this impeachment will greatly
affect not only our democratic system but also our image to the foreign countries. May justice
always prevail.

CHARGES

Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon, Complainant charges Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines on the following grounds for
impeachment: (1) culpable violation of the Constitution; (2) corruption; (3) other high crimes;
21
and (4) betrayal of public trust.

BASIS OF THE PROSECUTION

In order that this honorable court may be guided in the disposition of the above-entitled
impeachment complaint, cited hereunder the underlying support for the complainant’s
allegations:

1. That Chief Justice Sereno is guilty of “culpable violations of the Constitution” under the
following facts:22
a. That the Chief Justice allegedly falsified the Resolution of the Supreme Court in
A.M. No. 12-11-9-SC. 23
b. That the Chief Justice allegedly falsified the Temporary Restraining Order of the
Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 206844-45.24
c. That the Chief Justice allegedly falsified the Resolution of the Supreme Court in
A.M. No. 16-08-04-SC.25
d. That the Chief Justice allegedly delayed action on the numerous Petition for
Retirement Benefits of Justices and Judges, and the surviving spouses of Justices
and Judges.26

http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/01/16/opening-statement-of-senate-president-enrile-during-the-impeachmen
t-trial-of-chief-justice-corona-january-16-2012/
20
Rule III(3), Senate Resolution No. 39, otherwise known as Resolution Adopting the Rules of Procedure on
Impeachment Trials, available at https://www.senate.gov.ph/15th_congress/resolutions/resno39.pdf
21
Verified Complaint for impeachment, p.1, par. 2.
22
Complaint, par. 4 et seq.
23
Id., par. 4.1
24
Id., par. 4.2
25
Complain, par. 4.3
26
Id., par. 4.4
Page 4​ of 21
 e. That the Chief Justice allegedly delayed the resolution of A.M. No. 17-06-02-SC
(the request of the Secretary of Justice to transfer the Maute cases outside of
Mindanao) notwithstanding its extreme urgency as criminal cases were already
being filed in Cagayan de Oro City.27
f. That the Chief Justice allegedly failed to truthfully disclose her Statement of
Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) as required by the Constitution.28
g. That the Chief Justice allegedly manipulated the shortlist of the JBC to exclude
then Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza, for personal and political reasons.29
h. That the Chief Justice allegedly manipulated the shortlist of the JBC for the six
(6) vacancies in the Sandiganbayan for personal and political reasons.30
i. That the Chief Justice allegedly manipulated the shortlist of the JBC for the two
(2) vacancies in the Supreme Court, and failed to heed the pronouncements of the
Court in ​Aguinaldo v. Aquino, ​by clustering the shortlist.31
j. That the Chief Justice allegedly lied and made it appear that “several justices”
requested to do away with voting for recommendees to the Supreme Court, when
in fact not one Justice requested for it.32
k. That the Chief Justice allegedly manipulated the JBC, especially its four (4)
regular members, effectively destroying the JBC as a constitutional body
mandated to fairly and impartially screen and nominate applicants to the
Judiciary.33
2. That Chief Justice Sereno is guilty of “corruption” under the following acts:34
a. That the Chief Justice allegedly used public funds to purchase a brand-new
luxurious Toyota Land Cruiser 2017 top of the line model as her personal vehicle,
amounting to more than Five Million Pesos.35
b. That the Chief Justice allegedly used public funds to finance her stay in opulent
hotels when attending conferences in the Philippines and abroad, and flying on
business or first class together with her staff and security.36
c. That the Chief Justice allegedly used public funds to finance her huge entourage
of lawyers in her supposed official foreign trips.37

27
Id., par. 4.5
28
Id., par. 4.6
29
Id., par. 4.7
30
Id., par. 4.8
31
Id., par. 4.9
32
Id., par. 4.10
33
Id., par. 4.11
34
Complaint, par. 5 et seq.
35
Id., par. 5.1
36
Id., par. 5.2
37
Id., par. 5.3
Page 5​ of 21
 3. That Chief Justice Sereno is guilty of “other high crimes” under the following acts:38
a. That the Chief Justice allegedly ordered the Muntinlupa Judges not to issue
warrants of arrest against Senator Leila M. De Lima.39
b. That the Chief Justice allegedly instructed the Presiding Justice and Associate
Justices of the Court of Appeals not to comply with the processes of the House of
Representatives and to immediately question the same before the Supreme Court.
40

c. That the Chief Justice allegedly failed to report her extortionate fees and pay the
appropriate taxes therefor.41
d. That the Chief Justice allegedly embellished her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) in her
application for the Judiciary to overstate her credentials.42
4. That Chief Justice Sereno is guilty of “betraying the public trust” under the following acs:
43

a. That the Chief Justice allegedly hired an Information Technology consultant with
an excessive compensation without public bidding, in contravention of existing
laws, Commission on Audit (COA) rules, and public policy.44
b. That the Chief Justice allegedly sent a strongly-worded but misplaced reply to
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte on the judges linked to drugs thereby inviting a
head-on collision between the Presidency and Judiciary.45
c. That the Chief Justice allegedly prevented the Justices of the Court of Appeals to
do a courtesy call on President Rodrigo Roa Duterte.46
d. That the Chief Justice allegedly attacked the imposition of Martial Law in a
commencement address, while the validity of Martial Law was still pending
before the Supreme Court, and later continued to participate in the Court’s
deliberations.47
e. That the Chief Justice allegedly issued a Joint Statement with the Presiding
Justice of the Court of Appeals regarding CA-GR SP No. 151029 which can very
well be elevated to the Supreme Court.48
f. That the Chief Justice allegedly practiced favoritisms.49

38
Complaint, par. 6 et seq.
39
Id., par. 6.1
40
Id., par. 6.2
41
Id., par. 6.3
42
Id., par. 6.4
43
Complaint, par. 7 et seq.
44
Id., par. 7.1
45
Id., par. 7.2
46
Complaint, par. 7.3
47
Id., par. 7.4
48
Id., par. 7.5
49
Id., par. 7.6
Page 6​ of 21
 g. That the Chief Justice allegedly appointed a key official without authority or
approval of the Court ​en banc​.50
h. That the Chief Justice allegedly gave her newly-hired staff foreign travels and
granted them travel allowance for their foreign travels without authority or
approval of the Court ​en banc​.51
i. That the Chief Justice allegedly usurped the mandate of the Court en banc ​by
arrogating to herself alone the running of the Supreme Court and the Judiciary.52

DEFENSE OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The Chief Justice did not commit any culpable violations

a. The Chief Justice did not “falsify” any resolution, TRO, or issuances of the
Supreme Court as the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court provides that
resolutions of the Supreme Court ​en banc ​are drafted based solely on the Chief
Justice’s notes and that, for obvious reasons, the Chief Justice cannot “falsify” the
same.
b. The Chief Justice did not “falsify” the TRO in G.R. nos. 206844-45 as the same
has been issued under her authority and The Chief Justice cannot “falsify” her
own issuances and the same is authorized by the Rules of Court and the SC
Internal Rules.
c. The Chief Justice did not “intentionally delay” action on the petitions for
retirement and/or survivorship since the same are required to be decided by the
Supreme Court as a ​collegial body.
d. The Chief Justice did not “manipulate” or “delay” the resolution of A.M. No.
17-06-02-SC as it only took the Supreme Court 8 days to act upon the initial
request by the Secretary of Justice and was subsequently discussed by the
Supreme Court ​en banc barely 14 days later. Then, 14 days after, the Supreme
Court released its resolution granting the Secretary’s 13/06/2017 request for
consideration.
e. The Chief Justice fully disclosed her assets, liabilities, and net worth in her
SALNs. She earned approximately Php 30,300,00.00 in the PIATCO cases and
not Php37,000,000.00. All fees received had been declared in her income tax
returns for 2004 to 2009, paid corresponding taxes thereon, and were gradually
spent over time. All assets and investments acquired from the remainder of the
fees are reflected in her SALNs

50
Id., par. 7.7
51
Id. par. 7.8
52
Id. par. 7.9
Page 7​ of 21
 f. The Chief Justice, as ​ex officio Chairperson of the JBC, acted in good faith and in
accordance with the JBC Rules in the matter of the nomination and subsequent
appointment of then Solicitor General Jardaleza; the nominations to the six
simultaneous vacancies created by the creation of new Divisions of the
Sandiganbayan; and the two successive vacancies created by the retirement of the
Members of the Supreme Court.
g. The JBC is composed of high officers of the government and representatives of
different sectors who are appointed by the President. Allegations of “horse
trading” and willful violation of the Constitution by the Chief Justice should be
presented with substantive proof before these can be dignified as an “impeachable
offense”.
h. That supposing these allegations, except for the charge relating to the Chief
Justice’s SALN, were true, the Complainant cannot provide for any provision of
the Constitution that has been violated. These acts or omissions at most, constitute
violations of the internal rules and practices of the Supreme Court or the JBC and
does not count as “culpable violation of the Constitution,” for the fact that the
same does not prescribe the internal processes of these collegial bodies.
i. The same allegations largely pertain to differences in opinion with respect to the
internal processes of the collegial bodies and does not qualify for any violation of
the Constitution. And that these “violations”, assuming there were any, were all
committed unintentionally, involuntarily, or in good faith through honest mistake
of judgement and are subject only to the internal administrative processes and not
by impeachment.

2. The Chief Justice did not commit corruption

a. It is no less than the Supreme Court ​en banc itself, in A.M. No. 17-03-06-SC or
March 28, 2017 that approved the acquisition of the Land Cruiser for the price of
Php5,110,800.00. And by the virtue of Sec. 3.1 of DBM A.O. No. 233, the
purchase of a service vehicle “for security reasons and purposes for the… Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court” is allowed as an exception and no subsequent
repeal has yet to be made.

b. The Supreme Court ​en banc​, in the 2.6 million budget proposal for the “3​rd
Meeting of ASEAN Chief Justices and the ASEAN Law Association General
Assembly to be held in Boracay” presented to them by the Chief Justice, approved
of the use of the “Presidential Villa” of Shangri-La Boracay for 24 hours as it is

Page 8​ of 21
 only the Resort that had the facilities to ensure the security and safety of the
ASEAN Chief Justices during the high-profile meeting.

c. Under the Rule XII-19, II.B.6.b of the Supreme Court Human Resource Manual,
‘the Chief Justice is expressly allowed to travel on “full business class”’ and has
done so in all of her official duty trips is therefore not indicative of corruption not
an “extravagant or lavish lifestyle”. In relation, there is no statute prohibiting the
Chief Justice from bringing her staff on foreign trips nor has she brought a “huge
entourage” of lawyers during these trips; the highest number of lawyers she has
brought were 3 lawyers, who were focal persons for judicial reform programs that
were subject to the trip.

3. The Chief Justice did not commit any “High Crime”

a. The Chief Justice has never spoken to any of the three judges on the matter of
issuing a warrant of arrest against Senator Leila De Lima neither did she instruct
any Supreme Court official regarding the matter.
b. The Chief Justice did not “instruct” or “direct” then Presiding Justice Andres or
the CA Justices to do or defy any lawful order nor has she met or spoken to any of
the involved CA Justices that granted motions of provisional release in relation to
a petition of habeas corpus by the Ilocos 6.
c. The Chief Justice specifically stated “Technical Consultant/Deputy Commissioner
(Functional Title)” on her 2012 PDS and is founded upon the fact that she has
been the Deputy Commissioner of the PCHR (now CHR) and Alternate Member
to Commissioner Abelardo Aportadera of the CHR.

The Chief justice as well, stated in her 2010 PDS that she was a “lecturer” in
“International Trade Law” and that she is connected to the “Hague Academy of
International Law” as a lecturer. There have been no claims of actual lecture done
in Netherlands but instead she is in the Cambodia Extension Program of the same
academy.

Finally, the Chief Justice is indeed a lecturer of both the University of Western
Australia and of Murdoch University under their Manila Extension Programs.

4. The Chief Justice did not betray public trust.

a. It is in fact the Supreme Court’s Bids and Awards committee (not the Chief
Justice) that hired Ms. Macasaet through negotiated procurement because her
services are “highly technical in nature” and therefore is exempted from public

Page 9​ of 21
 bidding under Section 53.7 of the then prevailing 2009 Revised Implementing
Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9184 and her fees were justified by the result
of her work, thus her compensation cannot be characterized as “excessive”.
b. The August 8 2016 letter not only demonstrated the Chief Justice’s concern for
the welfare of all the members of the Judiciary (including those accused of
involvement of illegal drugs), but also her willingness, through the Supreme
Court’s power of administrative of lower courts to cooperate and work with the
President in his campaign thus the letter is consistent with Canon 2, Sec 2 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as, it showed that the Chief Justice’s conduct is
“above reproach” as required under Canon 2, Sec 1.
c. The Chief Justice cannot “prevent” any member of the Judiciary from visiting the
President. However, as the Head of the Judiciary, she has the power to
occasionally remind magistrates of the first Canon of the Code of Conduct.
d. The commencement address was an exercise of the Chief Justice’s right of free
speech. It was her view on a matter of public interest and history and nor has the
Chief Justice “prejudice” against Martial Law ​per se​; proven by her vote to
uphold the President’s declaration of Martial Law in the provinces of Lanao Del
Sur, Maguindanao, and Sulu.
e. The cited Canons by the complainant are inapplicable. The Joint Statement
contained absolutely no comment on the proceedings in CA-G.R. SP No. 151029.
Such was just solely focused on the House Committee’s issuance of “show cause
orders” against the three members of the Special 4​th Division of the CA. The
Chief Justice and then CA Presiding Justice Reyes simply expressed their “hope”
that the HOR would “reconsider: its show cause orders and, instead, “avail of all
legal remedies that are provided to it under the Constitution, the law, and the
Rules of Court.” Same with the IBP and the Philippine Bar Association.
f. The Supreme Court ​en banc ​should be allowed to resolve this internal court
matter. There is still a need to update the salary grades and benefits of certain key
positions and finding solutions to these problems, requiring the branch to have
extensive coordination with other government offices, and the Chief Justice
deems it better, in good faith, to develop a plan to address these concerns before
making any appointments.
g. This matter is also subject of A.M. No. 17-07-05-SC and Supreme Court ​en banc
should e allowed to resolve this internal Court matter. The HOR should not
interfere with this pending administrative matter in the guise of an impeachment
proceeding.

Page 10​ of 21
 h. The matter is also still subject of A.M. No. 17-07-05-SC which is presently
pending before the Supreme Court ​en banc​. In any event, foreign travel (and
related travel expenses) of court personnel do not have to be approved by the
Supreme Court ​en banc ​as stated in Sec. II.A.1, Chapter 12 of the Human
Resource Manual, “foreign travel of Justices or Judges and court personnel must
be duly approved by the Chief Justice and/or the Chairpersons of the Divisions”.
The provision does not differentiate foreign travel on “official time” or “official
business” this the rule is the same for both.
i. Evidenced by the Chief Justice’s conduct as mentioned above, there has been no
destruction done to the Supreme Court but rather there is zealous protection on its
independence as the third branch of the Government.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not Chief Justice Sereno committed culpable violation of the Constitution.
2. Whether or not the Chief Justice committed the crime of corruption.
3. Whether or not the Chief Justice committed an impeachable offense of other high crimes.
4. Whether or not Chief Justice Sereno committed betrayal of public trust.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE CHIEF JUSTICE DID NOT COMMIT ANY CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF

THE CONSTITUTION.
a. The Chief Justice did not falsify the Supreme Court’s resolution in A.M. No.
12-11-9-SC ratifying the revival of the Regional Court Administration Office in
Region 7 (RCOA-7). She did not act unilaterally in reviving RCOA-7 and said
resolution was duly circulated and approved by the Supreme Court ​en banc ​and was
not revoked.

Allegation is baseless and false it being coming not from the complainant’s
personal knowledge but merely from newspaper clippings. Neither did the complainant
able to cite specific provision/s of the Constitution that is being violated by the
above-mentioned allegations. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, cannot, unless
authorized by them, disclose court deliberations for these are treated to be confidential.53
Hence, allegations are not accurately validated by the complainant.

Falsification is clearly defined by the Revised Penal Code and none from those
enumerated can justify that such Administrative Order was falsified by the Chief Justice.

53
Rule 10, Sec. 2, A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC, otherwise known as The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court.
Page 11​ of 21
 The notes of the Chief Justice and the Division Chairperson, which the Clerk of
Court must treat with strict confidentiality, shall be the bases of the minutes of the
session.54 Thus, the Resolution can never be falsified by the Chief Justice it being an
excerpt of the minutes of the session in which according to the SC Internal Rules is based
from the notes of the Chief Justice herself. Hence, she cannot falsify her own notes. It is
noteworthy that both notes of the Chief Justice and the minutes of the session conform
with each other.

The alleged disagreement by Associate Justice De Castro cannot constitute a

ground for impeachment. Such disagreement can be resolved within the Supreme Court
since it is an internal matter. It cannot be considered, likewise, as culpable violation of
the Constitution since the complainant himself failed to cite specific provision of the
Constitution that is being violated.

b. The Chief Justice did not falsify any TRO in G.R. Nos. 206844-45. The Chief Justice
being the approver of any recommendation submitted to her by a
member-in-charge had the discretion to whether or not adopt fully the
recommended draft prepared by the latter.

Allegation is likewise baseless it being coming from a newspaper clipping. In this

case there were two similar cases filed by different party-list candidates, to wit: (1) G.R.
Nos. 206844-45 which was raffled to Justice De Castro; and (2) G.R. No. 206952 which
was raffled to Justice Reyes. In the latter case, Justice Reyes recommended the issuance
of a TRO against the COMELEC Resolution while in G.R. Nos. 206844-45, Justice De
Castro recommended the issuance of a TRO against the COMELEC Resolution, albeit
limited to the petitioners in the said case. When the two recommendations were evaluated
by the Chief Justice, it is her duty to reconcile both resolutions and adopted the
recommendation that was not limited to the petitioners. All TROs issued by the Chief
Justice are to be reviewed by the Court ​en banc or division and the TRO she issued was
not revoked by the SC ​en banc. ​The exercise by the Chief Justice of her power as the
head of the Judiciary to issue and act on a recommendation is in accordance with the SC
Internal Rules and there is no way that it would violate the Constitution since the SC
Internal Rules does not contradict the provisions of the Constitution.

c. The Supreme Court’s Resolution in A.M. 16-08-04-SC was not falsified.

We are again confronted with an allegation that is baseless and false. There are
two documents here that are involved: first, a ​draft ​of the the Resolution which provides

54
​Id., at 53
Page 12​ of 21
 a directive to file complaints against the 4 judges; and second, the ​later revision of the
draf​t which provides for “invited” instead of directed. What happened was, after the draft
has been first circulated, the draft was then voted on and approved in principle. On that
same afternoon, the Public Information Office released the dispositive portion of the draft
resolution. On August 10, 2016 the Resolution was again circulated for comment and
final confirmation and it was then when Justice Carpio proposed to alter the term
“directed” to “invited”. Hence, the draft was revised following Justice Carpio’s proposal.
The fact that the draft was revised does not constitute falsification since the same was
duly circulated, voted on and approved in principle. The revision of said draft does not
render the same as falsified. It only shows that the complaint lacks knowledge over his
allegations.

d. There was no delayed action on numerous petition for retirement benefits.

The Chief Justice has been more concerned to the needs of the retirees and their
beneficiaries that the Chief Justice created a special committee that would ensure
judiciary-wide consistency in its work. There are numerous of petitions pending at hand
but with the creation the special committee as significant improvement has been
achieved. The processing of the petitions become faster, efficient and consistent. The
Chief Justice cannot be blamed of creating such committee for she was looking into
something that could help change the system into a better and more efficient one. The
complainant, again, failed to prove that there is any provision in the Constitution that has
been violated this is because of the fact that the Constitution does not provide for a
deadline on resolving such kind of petition.

e. The Chief Justice did not “manipulate” or “delay” the resolution of A.M. No.
17-06-02-SC.

The initial request of the Secretary of Justice that the Maute and related cases be
transferred to Taguig City was acted upon by the Supreme Court within eight (8) days.
The letter of reconsideration by the Secretary of Justice was likewise acted upon within
fourteen (14) days despite the on-going and urgent discussion of the President’s
declaration of Martial Law. It is false that the request was raffle to Justice Tijam since it
was Chief Justice Sereno who was the member-in-charge in that matter. The Chief Justice
was in constant communication with the Secretary of Justice, the AFP and the PNP
considering that the choice of venue of the criminal cases and the detention facility is a
few kilometers away from heavily-populated economic centers and business centers of
Metro Manila which would substantially affect public security. The supposed “delay”

Page 13​ of 21
 was not due to the Chief Justice’s fault but because there are many matters that need to be
considered and the help of other departments is needed. Again, the complainant failed to
explain how the Chief Justice violated the Constitution under these circumstances.

f. The Chief Justice duly disclosed in her SALNs when she joined the Judiciary, the
investments and assets she acquired from the remainder of the fees she had received
as legal counsel for the Republic of the Philippines in the PIATCO case.

The Republic paid the legal fees of the Chief Justice for the PIATCO cases in an
aggregate amount of Php30.3M and not Php37M which she fully declared to the Bureau
of Internal Revenue. Php14.7M of the remaining P21.6M was spent to several purchases
and expenses. The balance of Php6.9M went to her and to the family’s living and other
expenses. All properties of the Chief Justice are declared in her SALN. Her legal fees as
private counsel were not exorbitant since she rendered her services not only in the
PIATCO case where it can be considered as a complex international commercial dispute
but also to other two international arbitration proceedings. It must also be stressed that
the Office of the Solicitor General approved the engagement of the Chief Justice and the
rate she proposed to charge.

g. The Chief Justice, as ​ex-officio Chairperson of the JBC, acted in accordance with
the JBC Rules then in force when she voted to exclude then SolGen Jardeleza from
the shortlist​ ​of appointees to the Supreme Court.

JBC-009, the Rules of the JBC the in effect provides that the affirmative vote of
all the members of the Council must be obtained for the favorable consideration of his
nomination.55 Justice Jardeleza was excluded because he did not obtain the unanimous
vote required under Sec. 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009. While the Supreme Court in the
Jardeleza case made an observation of unanimity rule in Sec. 2, Rule 10 of JBC appears
to be vague and unfair, the SC refused still to strike down the provision as
unconstitutional and even recognized JBC’s full authority to determine its own rules. The
Chief Justice is entitled to her own opinion on the qualifications. Her invoking of Sec.2,
Rule 10 of JBC-009 was done in good faith and without malice. Furthermore, there can
be no impairment of the President’s power to appoint since Justice Jardeleza was
eventually included in the shortlist and appointed by President Aquino.

55
Rule 10, Sec. 2, JBC-009
Page 14​ of 21
 h. The Chief Justice did not “manipulate” the shortlist of the JBC for the six (6)
vacancies in the Sandiganbayan, The practice of “clustering” nominees, which was
agreed by the JBC is not expressly prohibited under the Constitution.

It was not the Chief Justice who introduced the “clustering” but the JBC as a
collegial body. The Chief Justice is entitled only to one vote notwithstanding the fact that
she is the ​ex-officio ​Chairman of the body. None of the JBC members objected to the
“clustering”. The president’s power was not prejudiced since he disregarded the so-called
“clustering” of nominees. In contrast, there is absolutely no provision in the Constitution
that prohibits the “clustering” of nominees.

i. The JBC did not “cluster” the nominees for the two vacancies brought about by the
retirement of Justices Reyes and Mendoza.

There was no clustering of the lists of nominees for the two SC vacancies.
Pursuant to its duties, JBC made separate announcements of vacancy for the positions of
SC Justices. As a natural consequence of the separate applications/recommendations, and
thus separate lists of nominees, for each position.

j. The Chief Justice did not lie when she stated that there were several Associate
Justices of the Supreme Court who requested that they do away with voting for
“recommendees” to vacancies in the Supreme Court.

There were justices, who will be named by the Chief Justice at the right time, who
came to her in confidence. Notably, the JBC has the power to promulgate its own rules of
procedure, In revising said rules it cannot be deemed to be violating the Constitution.
JBC No. 2016-01 or the JBC Rules was approved unanimously by all JBC members. In
other words, the revision of the JBC Rules was a collegial decision. Again, this is not a
ground for impeachment and remedy is to seek an amendment of the JBC Rules.

k. The Chief Justice has shared her views and opinions on the qualifications of
different applicants to the Judiciary. However, she has never manipulated any
member of the JBC. The JBC has always acted as a collegial body.

This allegation is an insult not only to the integrity of the Chief Justice being the
ex-officio ​chairman of the JBC but to its members as well. Complainant should be
reminded that the members of the JBC are all independent-minded personalities who
cannot be easily manipulated. Again, the Chief Justice is entitled to her own opinions
since this process requires extensive deliberation and discussion.56 But at the end of the

56
Rule 8, Sec. 1 of the JBC Rules.
Page 15​ of 21
 day, despite the opinions of the Chief Justice, an applicant becomes a nominee only upon
a majority vote of the Council’s members.

2. THE CHIEF JUSTICE DID NOT COMMIT CORRUPTION.

a. ​The acquisition of the Toyota Land Cruiser (2017) Model was neither an illegal nor
an extravagant use of public funds.

It is no less than the Supreme Court ​en banc itself, in A.M. No. 17-03-06-SC or
March 28, 2017 that approved the acquisition of the Land Cruiser for the price of
Php5,110,800.00.

Under Sec. 3.1 of DBM A.O. No. 233 (a rule issued by the Executive Department
in 2008, before the Chief Justice’s appointment to the Supreme Court), the purchase of a
service vehicle “for security reasons and purposes of the… Chief Justice of the Supreme
court” is allowed as an exception. Section 2.2 of the DBM Budget Circular No. 2010-2
did not repeal this exception and the President, Senate President, and Speaker of the
House of Representatives are also covered by this exception

Such vehicle was also purchased in response to the threats to her personal security
and had it bulletproofed, as well, otherwise, it would have been irresponsible to disregard
them. In fact, previously, the Chief Justice has utilized a bulletproof blanket and vest as
protection in her Hyundai Starex van which was also handed down to her.

Thus, in light of these facts, the Chief Justice cannot be impeached for the
purchase of the said vehicle because such is “legally allowed” and, subsequently, cannot
constitute “corruption”.

b.​ ​The Chief Justice did not get herself “billeted” in a presidential villa in boracay.

The place in question is the Shangri-La’s Boracay Resort & Spa’s “Presidential
Villa”. The use of such was part of the “Room Block” package under the said hotel. The
“Room Block” package is also under the proposed Php2.6 million budgets for “the 3​rd
Meeting of ASEAN Chief Justices and the ASEAN Law Association (“ALA”) General
Assembly to be held in Boracay, Aklan (from) March 2-4, 2015” which has been duly
approved by the Supreme Court en banc ​under the reason that only the Resort had the
facilities to ensure the security and safety of the ASEAN Chief Justices during the
high-profile meeting.

Instead of booking additional rooms, the Chief Justice and her staff and part of the
secretariat were allowed to stay at the Presidential Villa without any additional charges.

Page 16​ of 21
 Therefore, there is nothing “corrupt” about maximizing the use of a rom, and saving
money for the Government in the process.

c​. ​The Chief Justice traveling on business class is not indicative of “corruption” or an
“extravagant or lavish lifestyle.” Also, the Chief Justice has not travelled on first
class as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Under the Rule XII-19, II.B.6.b of the Supreme Court Human Resource Manual,
the Chief Justice is expressly allowed to travel on “full business class”. Clearly, she did
not ask for the privilege and the provision has been duly approved by the Supreme Court
en banc through A.M. No. 00-6-1-SC dated January 31, 2012, before the Chief Justice
assumed her position.

This in recognition of the necessity of allowing her to travel by business class to

fully ensure she is prepared for all international and speaking engagements. It also bears
stressing that all official trips taken by the Chief Justice are made in pursuit of official
court business to further judicial reform, systems development and ASEAN, Asia-Pacific
and other international judicial relations.

d. ​The Chief Justice did not bring a “huge entourage of lawyers” during her foreign
trips.

There has been no established rule that prohibits the Chief Justice from bringing
her staff on foreign trips. The Chief Justice, as well, never brought a “huge entourage” of
lawyers during her trips abroad but rather only a number necessary to assist given the
nature and objective of the trip and to continue her function as the head of the Judiciary,
the JBC, the Justice Sector Coordination Council, the Constitutional Fiscally
Autonomous Agencies of the Government, and the chair of the Philippine Judicial
Academy, even abroad.

3. THE CHIEF JUSTICE DID NOT COMMIT ANY “HIGH CRIME”.

a. The Chief Justice never ordered any judge not to issue warrants of arrest against
Senator Leila M. De Lima.

The Chief Justice has never spoken to any of the three judges ​on this matter, and
neither did she instruct any Supreme Court official to instruct the judges to not issue a
warrant of arrest. This accusation is perjurious and should not be given merit. Notably,
Senator De Lima was arrested and currently detained.

Page 17​ of 21
 b. The Chief Justice did not “instruct” the presiding justice and associate justices of
the Court of Appeals not to comply with the processes of the House of
Representatives. Neither did she instruct them to immediately question such before
the Supreme Court.

This is in light of the show cause orders the HOR issued against Associate
Justices of the Special Fourth Division of the CA who granted motions for provisional
release in relation to a petition for ​habeas corpus of the “Ilocos 6” regarding the latter’s
detention by the HOR due to the Province’s use of Php66.45 million in tobacco excise
tax. Then CA Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. conferred with the Chief Justice in
connection to the show-cause order. She advised the former that the CA Justices should
consider their own legal remedies, therefore, there has been no “instruction” of
non-compliance. The Chief Justice, as head of the Judiciary, did it to protect the
independence of the Judiciary.

c. The Chief Justice did not “embellish” her PDS in applying for the judiciary “to
overstate her credentials”.

The Chief Justice is in fact, a former “Deputy Commissioner” of the CHR in view
of the fact that she possessed such functional title when the PCHR was abolished and all
its personnel were absorbed to the newly-organized CHR. The Chief Justice acted then as
Deputy or Alternate Member to Commissioner Abelardo Aportadera who served both the
PCHR and CHR. The Chief Justice is also a “lecture” in “International Trade Law” of the
“Hague Academy of International Law” in virtue that she was indeed a lecturer for the
subject under Hague Academy’s Cambodia Extension Program. Finally, the Chief Justice
is also a “lecturer” of University of Western Australia and Murdoch University” in virtue
that she is indeed a lecturer under both universities under their Manila Extension
Program. AS FINAL NOTE, HIGH CRIME REFERS ONLY TO OFFENSES WITH
“ENORMOUS GRAVITY THAT THEY STRIKE THE VERY LIFE OR ORDERLY
WORKING OF THE GOVERNMENT.” NONE OF THESE ALLEGATIONS RISE TO
THE LEVEL.

4. THE CHIEF JUSTICE DID NOT BETRAY PUBLIC TRUST.

a. The hiring of the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Consultant

was done in accordance with the government procurement reform law and her
compensation was not “excessive.”

Page 18​ of 21
 The ICT Consultant, Ms. Helen Perez-Macasaet, was hired by the Supreme Court
(and not the Chief Justice) through negotiated procurement by the virtue of Section 53.7
of the then prevailing 2009 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9184.
Miss Macasaet’s work is indeed “highly technical in nature” as she is expected to review
and assess the implementation of the EISP and related computerization and ICT Projects.

b. The Chief Justice’s August 8, 2016 Letter to the President did not amount to a
“betrayal of public trust.”

In the first place Canon 3 refers to impartiality not only "the decision itself but
also to the process by which the decision was made." This clearly refers to the judge's
adjudicatory functions and clearly the Chief Justice did not write the said letter in
exercise of her adjudicatory function. The letter also demonstrated not only the Chief
Justice's genuine concern for the welfare of all members of the Judiciary, but also her
willingness to cooperate and work with the President in his anti-drug campaign. In
sense, it "reaffirm(ed) the people's fsith in integrity of the judiciary," consistent with
the Canon 2, Sec 2 of the Judicial Conduct and it also shows the Chief Justice's
conduct "above reproach" as required in Canon 1. The Chief Justice also notified Exec
Sec Salvador Medialdea of the said letter and the latter found "no problem" with it and
offered no objection on bringing it to the media.

c. In reminding Justices of the CA about the Canon of Independence, the Chief

Justice did not “betray public trust.”

In the sense that the Chief Justice, in her supervisory power as the head of the
Judiciary, can remind magistrates of the first Canon of the Code of Conduct entitled
"Independence." That all judges must, "to be a reasonable observer," "appear to be
free" "from inappropriate connections with, and influenced by, the executive and
legislative branch of the government."

d. ​The Chief Justice did not “attack the imposition of Martial Law” in her
commencement address in ADMU. At the time, the imposition of the Martial Lw
had not been questioned before the Supreme Court.

On the contrary, the Chief Justice acknowledged the President's power to

declare Martial Law and although she alluded experiences during the Marcos' regime's
Martial Law, in no way did she say that it shall be relieved in the current one. The best
proof, perhaps, against this allegation and her impartiality would be her vote to uphold
the President's declaration to some parts only of Mindanao and not its entirety.

Page 19​ of 21
e. The Chief Justice did not betray public trust when she together with the a CA
Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, JR. signed a “Joint Statement” on the HOR’s
“Show-cause Order” against the three CA Justices in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 151029.

The statement did not touch the substance or merits of the C.A.-G.R. SP NO.
151029. It is solely focused on the House Committee's issuance of the order and their
threat of contempt/detention against the three members of the Judiciary for the acts
committed in the performance of their function. Under GR No. 232385, the Chief
Justice assured that her dealings regarding the present matter are free of any conflict of
interest.

f. ​The matter subject under A.M. No. 17-01-05-SC which is pending before the
SUpreme Court ​en banc. Likewise should be allowed to resolve this internal
matter.

This is in regards to the matter of the supposed delay of filling up certain

positions in the court as well as the matter of foreign travel of Court personnel on
"official time" and "official business". Both of which are under the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court en banc (not solely with the Chief Justice), which is currently reviewing
said issues. On the first issue, the Chief Justice intended the delay for the Judiciary to
reorganize first updates on salaries and benefits, which is an ardorous task considering
they would still jointly work this out with various governmental departments, before
putting personnel in said position. Secondly, although the matter is still subject to
review, Section II.A.1, Chapter 12 of the Human Resource Manual states that "foreign
travel by Judge, Justices, and court personnel must be duly approved by the Chief
Justice and/or the Chairpersons of the Divisions." The provision does not provide for
any difference between if on "official time" or "official business" and therefore, taken at
face value, does not distinguish among cases and is generally applicable to both.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, ​premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Verified

Complaint for Impeachment against Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno be
DISMISSED for lack of sufficient grounds and for lack of probable cause.

Other reliefs, just and equitable in the premises, are likewise prayed for.

Cebu City for Quezon City, 16 October 2017.

For the Hon. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno:

JAMES MARVIN C. BASAÑEZ

CATES TORRES

Page 20​ of 21
Page 21​ of 21