Sereno accused of acting as prosecutor and judge vs. Jardeleza in nomination process

Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro on Monday accused Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno of acting as a complainant, prosecutor and judge when she opposed the nomination of then-Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza to the Supreme Court.

During the impeachment proceedings against Sereno before the House Committee on Justice, De Castro said any member of the Judicial and Bar Council could not be an oppositor against a nominee and should inhibit from the selection process.

“A JBC member cannot be an oppositor and at the same time be an independent judge on the qualification of that candidate nor that of other candidates for the same post," De Castro said.

"An oppositor from JBC should inhibit from the entire selection procedures not just from voting for the candidate,” she added.

Sereno opposed the nomination of Jardeleza on supposed integrity issues due to handling of the West Philippine Sea arbitration case.

“Not having inhibited from the JBC proceedings, Chief Justice Sereno acted as a complainant, prosecutor, and judge against Solicitor General Jardeleza,” De Castro said.

She said that there was nothing in the records of the JBC that supported the integrity challenge against Jardeleza.

“What it showed is that Jardeleza had a different professional opinion as other lawyers involved in the case,” De Castro said.

She added the other charges against the then Solicitor General were unsubstantiated as “they were based on hearsay.”

Jardeleza almost did not make the cut after the JBC initially excluded him from the list when Sereno raised an objection against him due to "integrity issues.” 

Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 required the affirmative vote of all the six JBC members for an applicant whose integrity has been challenged. Jardeleza got a majority vote of four.

He challenged the decision and the Supreme Court voted in his favor.

Jardeleza was eventually  appointed to the post vacated by retired Associate Justice Roberto Abad.

De Castro said she did not question the motive of Sereno at that time but added that she later realized that the Chief Justice really wanted to exclude Jardeleza from the list.

“Many of the justices will include Jardeleza in their top five and when that happens it will be very difficult for the Chief Justice to attack Jardeleza," De Castro said.

"It is only now when I came to know what happened to Jardeleza that I came to suspect that this is part of the plan to exclude Jardeleza,” she added.

Former Associate Justice Arturo Brion, meanwhile, reiterated his earlier statement that Sereno manipulated the JBC to exclude Jardeleza from the list.

“I gave a harsh judgment then the Chief Justice manipulated the power to exclude Jardeleza,” he said.

In a statement, Sereno’s lawyers said the Chief Justice, as ex officio chairperson of the JBC, acted in good faith and in accordance with the JBC Rules regarding the nomination and subsequent appointment of Jardeleza.

They said the initial exclusion of Jardeleza from the list was not because the Chief Justice supposedly “manipulated” the list.

“Justice Jardeleza was excluded because he did not obtain the unanimous vote required under Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009. The Chief Justice, in invoking Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009, did not act with malice. She was merely performing her duty as a member of the JBC to register her good faith opposition to the nomination of then Solicitor General Jardeleza,” Sereno's lawyers said.

They added Sereno made the move after receiving and painstakingly verifying reports on Jardeleza’s stand in the West Philippine Sea arbitration between the Philippines and China.

“These reports had given her reasonable grounds to doubt his integrity and moral fitness to become a member of the highest court of the land,” they said.

They added the minutes of the executive session held on June 30, 2014 would show that then Solicitor General was in fact given an opportunity to explain his side but he refused to do it because he wanted a written statement on the charges against him.

“The JBC’s good faith observation of its own interpretation of the procedure laid down in Rule 4, Sections 1 and 2 and Rule 5, Sections 1 and 2 of JBC-009 with respect to Justice Jardeleza’s right to be heard, shows that there was no “willful” or deliberate intention to violate Justice Jardeleza’s rights to due process,” they added. —NB, GMA News