SUMMARY
This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.
MANILA, Philippines – Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is seeking the “compulsory disqualification” of Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro from the quo warranto proceeding that the High Court will act on.
Her reason: De Castro’s “repeatedly manifested actual bias, if not personal animosity” towards her.
In a press statement, Sereno said, “With due respect, the Chief Justice has reasonable grounds to believe that Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro had already prejudged the issue regarding the validity of the Chief Justice’s nomination and subsequent appointment in 2002.”
In a 30-page motion filed through her lawyers, Sereno said De Castro “had already prejudged the issue regarding the validity of her appointment as chief justice in 2012.”
The Office of the Solicitor General filed the petition that seeks to remove her from the chief justice post by proving that her appointment was invalid from the start. It is a route different from impeachment.
On April 5, Sereno also filed 4 separate motions seeking the inhibition of 4 other Supreme Court justices – Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, and Noel Tijam – saying that they cannot decide on the pending quo warranto petition filed against her “objectively and impartially.”
Like the 4 justices, De Castro testified against Sereno in her impeachment case pending before the House of Representatives and took part in the “Red Monday” protest that called for her resignation.
During a January 2018 impeachment hearing, De Castro asserted that Sereno was disqualified from being chief justice because of her failure to submit to the Judicial and Bar Council the required Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth when she was teaching at the University of the Philippines.
In her statement, Sereno pointed out that because De Castro “made her statements under oath and before full presentation of the relevant facts,” the perception of bias cannot be ignored.
Among others, De Castro made insinuations about Sereno’s psychological fitness for office and cited the “long suffering” of court officers and employees under her leadership.
The refusal to inhibit will violate Sereno’s right to due process as guaranteed by the Constitution. “In cases of compulsory inhibition, it is conclusively presumed that the judge cannot render judgment impartially or objectively. The judge cannot insist on hearing the case without willfully violating the Constitution,” the Chief Justice said.
The Supreme Court en banc on March 1 issued a joint statement signed by all 13 justices (excepet Sereno and Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa, who was on leave) that said they had reached a consensus on Sereno taking an indefinite leave to give her time to prepare for her impeachment case.
Insisting that she can only be removed from office via impeachment by the House and upon conviction by the Senate sitting as an impeachment court, Sereno said the motions to inhibit that they filed were “without prejudice to her contention that the High Court has no jurisdiction over the quo warranto case.” – Rappler.com
Add a comment
How does this make you feel?
There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.