Filtered By: Topstories
News

6 justices weren't biased against Sereno —SC ouster decision


There was no reason for six members of the Supreme Court to recuse themselves from the quo warranto case filed against ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the high tribunal's decision said.

The SC voted 8-6 to grant the petition of Solicitor General Jose Calida seeking to nullify Sereno's appointment to the highest judicial post in the land.

Sereno had sought for the inhibition of six associate justices — Teresita De Castro, Noel Tijam, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, and Samuel Martires — from the case. They all ended up voting for Sereno's ouster.

In the 153-page document penned by Tijam, the court deemed Sereno's prayer without basis.

"Absent strong and compelling evidence establishing actual bias and partiality on the part of the Justices whose recusal was sought, respondent's motions for inhibition must perforce fail," the decision read.

"Mere conjectures and speculations cannot justify the inhibition of a Judge or Justice from a judicial matter. The presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role of dispensing justice in accordance with law and evidence, and without fear or favor, should not be abandoned without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."

The six judges appeared before the House Committee on Justice to testify on the impeachment case against Sereno.

The court, however, said that their appearance did not prove bias, saying it "was in deference to the House of Representatives whose constitutional duty to investigate the impeachment complaint filed against respondent could not be doubted."

"Their appearance was with the prior consent of the Supreme Court En Banc and they faithfully observed the parameters that the Court set for the purpose. Their statements in the hearing, should be carefully viewed within this context, and should not be hastily interpreted as an adverse attack against respondent," it said.

Touch of red

Sereno had also sought Tijam and Bersamin's recusal citing their wearing of red articles of clothing during a "Red Monday" protest at the SC on March 12 "wherein judges and court employees reportedly called on respondent to make the supreme sacrifice and resign."

The court called the argument "baseless and unfair."

"There is no basis, whether in logic or in law, to establish a connection between a piece of clothing and a magistrate's performance of adjudicatory functions," it said.

"Absent compelling proof to the contrary, the red piece of clothing was merely coincidental and should not be deemed a sufficient ground to disqualify them."

Sereno also cited Tijam's comments to the Manila Times warning her of culpable violation of the Constitution for speaking about the case in public, which the court dismissed as Tijam simply prodding Sereno to follow rules of court.

It also denied Sereno's motion for Martires to recuse based on his comments during the oral arguments for the case, citing "purported insinuations... questioning her 'mental' or 'psychological' fitness on the basis of her belief that God is 'the source of everything in (her) life.'" The court said Martires was not specifically referring to Sereno when he made the remark.

Delicadeza

The court also called "baseless, not to mention problematic" Sereno's plea for the six justices to let the rest of the court decide on her prayer for their recusal.

"The respondent herself was cognizant that the prevailing rule allows challenged Justices to participate in the deliberations on the matter of their disqualification," the decision read.

"Moreover, exclusion from the deliberations due to delicadeza or sense of decency, partakes of a ground apt for a voluntary inhibition. It bears to be reminded that voluntary inhibition, leaves to the sound discretion of the judges concerned whether to sit in a case for other just and valid reasons, with only their conscience as guide."

After the release of the decision, Sereno had maintained that the six justices should have recused.

"Walo po ang dapat lamang bumoto sa kaso ng quo warranto dahil ang anim ay dapat nag-inhibit ayon sa rules of compulsory inhibition. Kaya kung tutuusin, panalo po tayo," she told a crowd of supporters gathered outside the high court, after emerging from a special en banc session that voted to unseat her.

"Ngunit ayaw mag-inhibit ang dapat mag-inhibit. Ganyan ang nangyari," Sereno added. —JST, GMA News

RELATED LINKS:

Main decision

Concurring opinion

Dissenting opinions

 

LOADING CONTENT