In their decision that in the minds of many extra-constitutionally kicked out of office Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, 24th chief justice of the Philippine Supreme Court (SC), eight associate justices ordered her to account for their self-inflicted pains.
They demanded that she explain why she should not be sanctioned for allegedly violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and Code of Judicial Conduct, transgressing the sub judice rule and demonizing SC members.
The eight who voted to oust Sereno were Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo De Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Samuel Martires, Francis Jardeleza, Andres Reyes Jr., Alexander Gesmundo, and Noel Tijam, who authored the decision.
Buy mirrors, your honors.
Sereno cannot be faulted for describing the situation throughout the impeachment and quo warranto dramas.
For Sereno to move for the inhibition of the justices who testified against her at the Lower House or who hinted at their prejudgment of her case when they grilled her was no act of besmirching them.
She was simply describing their descent into ignominy.
Any woke Juan de la Cruz or Maria Clara understands that accusers should never sit in judgment over someone against whom they are partial.
How did six associate justices behave when they testified against Sereno in the Lower House?
“I can’t stand idly by when the power of Supreme Court is being undermined,” De Castro said, alluding to Sereno. “I should speak up.”
“I just want to ask her: who is disloyal to the Philippine government?” said Jardeleza when he slammed Sereno for allegedly illegally obtaining classified information about the Philippine claim to the West Philippine Sea.
“Mental dishonesty” was attributed by Tijam to Sereno when she crafted a resolution to move the cases against the Maute terror group outside Mindanao.
Sereno, according to Bersamin and Peralta, violated the collegial nature of the Supreme Court many times.
At the hearing on the quo warranto, Martires inquired into the mental health of Chief Justice Sereno — a devout Christian — though it was not an issue in the petition.
“Would you agree it a mental illness when a person always invokes God as the source of his strength?” he asked solicitor-general Jose Calida.
On March 5, Bersamin, De Castro, Martires, and Peralta, joined a flag-raising ceremony wherein court employees wore red as a symbolic call for the Chief Justice to resign.
The justices sported red clothes or accessories.
“A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct reads.
But the associate justices having painted Sereno as someone who has — out of a dishonest and unbalanced mind undermined the workings of the High Court and betrayed the country badly enough to court a resignation call — who can honestly vouch for their impartiality towards her in the quo warranto case?
“A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” states rule 3.12 of the same Code.
Who has violated the judicial code of conduct?
Six associated justices refused to recuse themselves from the quo warranto vote when urged to do so. Sereno inhibited at voting time
. The six brazenly voted. Had the six abstained, Gesmundo and Reyes would have been outvoted. The eight have crucified Sereno.
They have pre-empted the Senate that has the sole right to try cases against chief justices.
Now they insult her?
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
