Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE
House of Representatives Complex
Constitution Hills, Quezon City
Complainant,
x------------------------------------------------x
Page 1 of 29
2. Pages 1 4 school us on the nature of impeachment cases; pp. 5 10
enumerate the achievements of a collegiate court for which she solely
takes credit; pp. 11 19 are just general admissions and denials; while
pp. 20 onwards discuss her affirmative allegations and defenses, let us
discuss them.
4.1. First, she was never a patient (unless she is now admitting to be a
mental patient) of the psychologists / psychiatrists who conducted
the tests and evaluated her. She voluntarily submitted herself to
them on this single instance because she wanted to become chief
justice, plain and simple. A physician-patient relationship is only
created when a patient engages the services of a physician and the
latter accepts or agrees to provide care to the patient. 1 The
doctors in this case never provided care to Respondent Sereno.
4.2. Second, any claim to her privacy must fail when confronted with
the public interest doctrine. The right of privacy is not an
absolute right, and a limited intrusion into a persons privacy has
long been regarded as permissible where that person is a public
figure and the information sought to be elicited from her or to be
published about her constitute matters of a public character. 2
Simply put, the public must be informed of the state of mental
health of the Chief Justice.
1
Casumpang v. Cortejo, G.R. No. 171127, 11 March 2015.
2
Ayer Productions v. Capulong, G.R. No. 82380, 29 April 1988.
Page 2 of 29
4.3. Respondent Sereno is not consenting to the release of her mental /
psychological evaluation results simply because they will clearly
show her mental unfitness to be and remain as chief justice.
4.5. Respondent Sereno denies firing the two (2) psychiatrists who
gave her a failing mark, but admits that the Judicial Bar and
Council (JBC) no longer renewed their contracts after she later
became its ex officio Chairperson. Same banana.
5.1. Respondent Sereno falsified no less than three (3) Supreme Court
resolutions by making it appear that the contents of these
resolutions were agreed upon by, and reflect the final consensus
of the Court En Banc, when in fact, they do not. That the
resolutions are supposedly based on Respondent Serenos notes
does not necessarily mean that her notes reflect the actual
3
Art. 171, Revised Penal Code of the Philippines
Page 3 of 29
consensus reached by the Court En Banc because what she writes
down as her notes are her views, and not the prevailing views as
voted upon by the majority of the members of the Court.
Page 4 of 29
issuances of the Court in these consolidated cases are superseded only
insofar as they may be inconsistent with this present resolution.
7.1. She argues that she did not falsify the TRO because the Supreme
Court Internal Rules expressly empowers her to act on urgent
cases requiring immediate action when the Court is in recess, even
without the recommendation of the Member-in-Charge. This is so
if the Member-in-Charge is absent and cannot be reached.
8.1. The 9 August 2016 Resolution released by the PIO that same
afternoon categorically directed the Executive Secretary to submit
Complaint-Affidavits against the four (4) judges. It did not
merely invited the law enforcement authorities to submit
complaints or other information against the four judges, as she
argues. This is clear as daylight.
8.2. Respondent Sereno argues that what the PIO released was a draft
resolution, which had already been voted on and approved in
principle. Another total lie! Because what the Court En Banc
voted on and approved was the tenor of the 16 August 2016
Resolution which resolved to invite law enforcement officials,
and not direct the Executive Secretary, to submit complaints-
affidavits.
Page 5 of 29
8.3. The release of the 9 August 2016 Resolution by the PIO, upon
instruction of Respondent Sereno but without authority of the
Court En Banc, clearly constitutes falsification of a Supreme
Court resolution because it was made to appear that said
resolution was decided and agreed upon by the Court En Banc,
when in fact it was not. The subsequent 16 August 2016
Resolution, which is the final and signed resolution, is totally
different from the 9 August 2016 Resolution.
Page 6 of 29
9.2. Respondent Sereno further claims that this new system in place
resulted in significant improvement in the speed, efficiency, and
consistency in the processing of petitions for retirement benefits.
This is complete bogus! Many of these applications, filed by
septuagenarians, octogenarians and nonagenarians, have sat
unattended for a year or two or more, celebrating their birthdays
on the table of her newbie lawyer, the de facto head of her TWG,
while previous applications have been resolved promptly. These
applications only moved recently, after the issue was included as
an article of impeachment against Respondent Sereno.
10.1. Sure it took only all of eight (8) days, from 29 May 2017 to 6
June 2017, for the Court to act on the initial request of the Justice
Secretary to transfer the Maute cases out of Mindanao, but only
because the request was DENIED! It was actually so fast that the
Resolution of the Court was out in the afternoon of the morning
the justices deliberated. But then again, the request was denied,
and the Maute cases were transferred, not out of Mindanao as
Page 7 of 29
requested, but only to two (2) cities away, within Mindanao, from
Marawi to Cagayan de Oro, barely two (2) hours away by land
travel.
10.3. That she did not call Justice Tijam to inform him that the matter
had been assigned to him (a brazen lie) is evidentiary in nature
shall may be verified later.
11.2. She likewise argues that assuming that she indeed failed to
truthfully disclose her SALN, this was done before she joined the
Page 8 of 29
Judiciary in 2010 and hence, is not an impeachable offense. It
may not yet be an impeachable offense, but it already displays a
despicable mind.
12.2. Respondent Sereno also points out that she did not impair the
Presidents power to appoint members of the Judiciary, since
Justice Jardeleza was eventually included in the shortlist and
appointed by then President Benigno C. Aquino III. Yes, but only
after the JBC, which Respondent Sereno manipulated, was
reversed by the Court En Banc.
13. Manipulation of the JBC shortlist for the six vacancies in the
Sandiganbayan. Respondent Sereno denies manipulating the JBC
shortlist and argues that the practice of clustering nominees, which the
JBC, acting as a collegial body, introduced, is not expressly prohibited
under the Constitution.
4
Jardeleza v. Sereno, G.R. No. 213181, August 19, 2014, 31.
Page 9 of 29
13.1. Respondent Sereno argues that President Aquinos appointing
power did not suffer any prejudice because he actually
disregarded the so-called clustering of nominees. Precisely so -
he disregarded such clustering. Otherwise, the Presidents
appointing power would have been impaired.
13.2. Respondent Sereno interjects that she did not file any petition to
assail the manner by which President Aquino had chosen his
appointees nor did she formally take issue with the Presidents
apparent disregard of the so-called clustering. Good for her.
At any rate, she was not the aggrieved party to begin with.
14. Manipulation of the JBC shortlist for the two vacancies in the
Supreme Court. Respondent Sereno claims that there was no
clustering for these vacancies, which did not occur simultaneously but
at least 35 days apart.
14.2. And yet for the vacancy created by the retirement of SC Justice
Jose Mendoza on 13 August 2017, she caused the JBC to vote on
the shortlist for his successor on 7 July 2017, a good 36 days
before the retirement of Justice Mendoza. Why? Because a JBC
Member who is allied to her will be retiring on 9 July 2017. The
Page 10 of 29
new JBC member may not vote with her anymore. Isnt this
manipulation?
16. Manipulation of the JBC, especially its four (4) regular members, by
Respondent Sereno. Respondent Sereno denies ever manipulating any
member of the JBC. A patent lie! At the outset, Complainant referred
only to the four (4) regular members she was influencing, excluding the
ex-officio members, namely the Secretary of Justice and the member of
Congress.
16.1. Isnt by calling the four (4) regular JBC members individually to
her chambers to personally convince, persuade and beg them to
either vote or reject a particular applicant a form manipulation?
Page 11 of 29
and who has been with the SC for 30 years, but shortlisted
Respondent Serenos lightweight chief of staff who was in fact
just known as her umbrella boy and her other neophyte lawyers
in numerous branches of the RTC in the NCJR.
17. Acquisition of Toyota Land Cruiser 2017 model using public funds.
Respondent Sereno claims that the acquisition was neither an
extravagant purchase nor an illegal use of public funds because it was
approved by the Court En Banc in its 28 March 2017 Resolution in A.M.
No. 17-03-06-SC.
17.1. The top-of-the-line 2017 Toyota Land Cruiser which costs the
general public P5.1 Million is not extravagant??? Is she too high
a public official to ride a Toyota Hi-Ace which costs less than
half, and which has been the customary vehicle for justices of the
Supreme Court, including chief justices? In the entire 116-year
history of the Supreme Court, it is only now that a chief justice
has ordered the purchase of such a luxurious vehicle. Isnt she
ashamed of herself?
17.2. Poor trial court judges who are assigned to two (2) or more courts
as they must travel between their courts using ordinary public
conveyance or customary modes of transportation (which) shall
be the most advantageous to the government from the standpoint
Page 12 of 29
of economy and efficiency 5 in order to be reimbursed for their
transportation expenses. And these judges sometimes have to
cross the seas or traverse mountains, unmindful of the perils and
dangers that face them.
17.3. Respondent Sereno wants the judges, court personnel and the
general public to pity her. For years, she laments, she did not
ask for a new or luxury motor vehicle Instead, she
improvised. She hung a personally-purchased bullet-proof
blanket on one side of the interior of the Hyundai Starex van that
was handed down to her. She also covers her back seat with a
bullet-proof vest which her husband had given her as a gift. This
continues to be her vehicle security upgrade at personal cost until
today. This can hardly be characterized as an extravagant
lifestyle.
17.4. What she does not tell us is that she travels the streets of Metro
Manila escorted by a coterie of security personnel in two (2) to
three (3) motorcycles to clear her path, while the rest are packed
in two (2) Toyota Innovas as her security back-up, all at the
expense of public funds. One begins to wonder, has she wronged
so many for her to be so paranoid and move around with a platoon
of security personnel? As one senior justice of the Supreme Court
quipped, Dont we decide the same cases?
Page 13 of 29
matter, already referred to the Request for Approval of the Award
of the Contract for the Supply and Delivery of the Toyota Land
Cruiser to Toyota Makati, Inc.
17.6. All told, despite being allowed by some existing rules to purchase
and use a luxury vehicle, what is at issue here is the propriety of
purchasing a luxury vehicle with public funds. Nothing more.
18. Use of public funds to finance her extravagant and lavish lifestyle.
Respondent Sereno claims that she did not get herself billeted in a
Presidential Villa of Shangri-la Boracay and points to the En Banc
Resolution approving the P2.6 Million budget for the 3rd Meeting of
ASEAN Chief Justices and the ASEAN Law Association General
Assembly to be held in Boracay on March 2-4, 2015, which
specifically included the use of the Presidential Villa as the meeting
area for 24 hours.
Page 14 of 29
(and not the regular rate of P280,000.00) as part of the Room
Block. So which is which: free, P134,192.25, P280,000.00, or
P2,600,000.00? Take your pick.
Page 15 of 29
or defense for the business class travels of her security and staff
asserted by the Complainant. Why the selective silence?
18.9. With respect to the charge she brings a huge entourage of lawyers
to her supposed official foreign trips, Respondent Sereno asserts
that there is no rule which prohibits the Chief Justice from
bringing her staff on foreign trips. That said, (she) never brought
with her a huge entourage of lawyers but only such number of
lawyers as were necessary to assist her given the nature and
objective of the official trip. Same banana!
Page 16 of 29
20.1. That Respodent Sereno did not meet with the CA justices on this
matter nor did she instruct them not to comply with the process of
the House of Representative and question the same before the
Supreme Court is evidentiary in nature and will be verified later.
21. Failure to report her extortionate attorneys fees and pay the
appropriate taxes therefor. Respondent Sereno claims that she paid all
applicable taxes on her legal fees, without however, offering any
evidence to support her claim, which should be readily available to her.
By alleging payment of taxes, the burden of proof has shifted to her. It
is thus surprising that while she has appended three (3) inches thick of
documents as her annexes, she has failed to attach simple copies of her
ITRs and receipts to prove her allegation that she paid more than Eight
Million Pesos in taxes.
22. Embellishment of her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) in applying for the
Judiciary to overstate her credentials. Respondent Sereno denies
embellishing her PDS to overstate her credentials. She insists that she
possessed the functional title of Deputy Member of the Presidential
Committee on Human Rights, and later on, Deputy Commissioner of the
Commission on Human Rights (CHR). She claims that in her PDS in
support of her application for the position of Chief Justice (the 2012
PDS), she specifically stated TECHNICAL CONSULTANT/DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (FUNCTIONAL TITLE).
22.1. Responden Sereno did not offer any evidence proving that she
indeed held that title or position in the CHR. Moreover, her 2012
PDS indicates DEPUTY COMMISSIONER as her position in
the CHR, and NOT TECHNICAL CONSULTANT/DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER (FUNCTIONAL TITLE) as she claims.
Page 17 of 29
22.2. Respondent Sereno likewise insists that her PDS was truthful
when she stated she was a lecturer at the Hague Academy of
International. She never claimed she actually lectured in the
Netherlands and indeed was a lecturer for the Cambodia
Extension Program of the Hague Academy of International Law.
22.4. The same goes for her stating that she was a lecturer in both the
University of Western Australia and Murdoch University, which
again, is very misleading and inaccurate. Based on the
Certification made by Antonio P. Esteban, Executive Director,
Australian International School (formerly Esteban School),
Respondent Sereno was a Philippine-sourced faculty for the
transnational Master of Business Administration program in the
Philippines of the Esteban School, a locally-based school, in
partnership first with Murdoch University and then with the
University of Western Australia. She is actually a lecturer in
the Esteban School, and NOT in Murdoch University and
University of Western Australia.
6
Graduation and Honors, Harvard Extension School, available at
https://www.extension.harvard.edu/resources-policies/completing-your-degree/graduation-
honors (last accessed 27 September 2017).
Page 18 of 29
22.5. Respondent Serenos deliberate omission of these details show
her clear intent to overstate her credentials in order to mislead the
JBC and the appointing authority. Lies, lies, lies
23.1. Respondent Sereno claims that is was the Supreme Court, and not
her, who hired Ms. Macasaet (from among three choices)
through negotiated procurement, because her services are highly
technical in nature and, therefore, exempted from the public
bidding under Sec. 53.7 of the then prevailing 2009 Revised
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9184.
Page 19 of 29
23.3. This actually does not end with Ms. Macasaet. Respondent
Sereno has hired quite a number of consultants:
7
Contract of Services of Jose A. Zaide dated February 1, 2013.
8
Contracts of Services of Verna D. Albano dated September 17, 2015, June 1, 2016,
December 7, 2016, and June 1, 2017.
Page 20 of 29
to March 15, 2014. 9 Note that Ms. Macasaet was first
engaged as ICT Consultant within that same period,
beginning October 1, 2013, to do essentially the same task,
but this time at the rate of Six Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P600,000.00) for a six-month period, or One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,00.00) a month, which was
subsequently raised to One Million and Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P1,500,000.00) for a six-month period, in
her subsequent contracts.
23.3.5. The list goes on. Did the hiring of all these consultants,
especially those in the Office of the Chief Justice, pass
through the Court En Banc?
9
Contract of Service of Mr. Alexander M. Arevalo dated September 16, 2013.
10
Contract of Service of Atty. Carlos N. Garay dated June 3, 2015 and December 21,
2015.
Page 21 of 29
23.3.7. Ms. Macasaets monthly fee of Two Hundred Fifty
Thousand (P250,000) greatly exceeds the salary of an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, which is at One
Hundred Fifty-Two Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Five
Pesos (P152,325.00).11
11
Based on Republic Act No. 6758 (Compensation and Position Classification Act of
1989) and the Second Tranche, Step 1 for Salary Grade 31 in Executive Order No. 201, series of
2016 (Modifying the Salary Schedule for Civilian Government Personnel and Authorizing the
Grant of Additional Benefits For Both Civilian and Military and Uniformed Personnel).
12
Genalyn D. Kabiling, Duterte fires SRA chief, limits hiring of consultants by govt
agencies, Manila Bulleting, September 19, 2017, available at
http://news.mb.com.ph/2017/09/19/duterte-fires-sra-chief-limits-hiring-of-consultants-by-govt-
agencies/ (last accessed September 27, 2017).
Page 22 of 29
occasionally remind magistrates of the first Canon of the Code of
Conduct, which is entitled Independence.
26.1. The Code of Conduct is clear: judges shall not knowingly, while
a proceeding is before or could come before them, make any
comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the
outcome of such proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of
the process.13
26.3. That there are people, like Complainant himself, who took
Respondent Serenos statement as an attack against Martial Law,
thereby indicating her bias against it, shows that she did not
consider all the effects her statement could reasonably bring
about. As Chief Justice, she should be more circumspect of the
effects or reactions her words could elicit. The Code of Judicial
13
Canon 3, Sec. 4, New Code of Judicial Conduct.
Page 23 of 29
Conduct enjoins judges to consider not only their own
impressions of their statements, but more importantly, the
possible impressions these could have on other people.
27. 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. Respondent Sereno insists that the cited Canons
are inapplicable because the Joint Statement contained absolutely no
comment on the proceedings in CA-G.R. SP No. 151029 and did not
touch on the substance or merits of said case. Rather, it focused solely
on the House Committees unprecedented issuance of show cause
orders against the three members of the Special 4 th Division of the CA.
27.1. Respondent Sereno is splitting hairs here. Firstly, the show cause
order, the very subject of the Joint Statement, is an incident
arising out of the proceedings in CA-G.R. SP No. 151029.
Secondly, by calling on the HOR to reconsider its [show cause]
order and avail of all legal remedies provided to it under the
Constitution, the law and the Rules of Court, Respondent
Sereno already revealed her position on the matter should the
case be elevated to the Supreme Court. This is exactly what the
cited Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct seek to guard
against.
Page 24 of 29
demoralization of qualified Court employees. Respondent Sereno
claims that the matter of unfilled positions is an internal matter that is
currently pending before the Court En Banc, which should be allowed to
resolve it. She explains that the appointments to the vacancies were
deferred to await the resolution of a number of issues related to the
organizational development of the Supreme Court.
Page 25 of 29
30. Giving her newly-hired staff foreign travels and granting them
travel allowance for their foreign travels without authority or
approval of the Court En Banc, in violation of Court-established
rules and the Constitution. Respondent Sereno claims that this matter
is likewise pending before the Supreme Court En Banc. However, she
opines that foreign travels (and related travel expenses) of court
personnel do not have to be approved by the Supreme Court En Banc.
31. All told, all these lies, excuses, and attempted justifications show her
unfitness to remain as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Hers are not
14
Guidelines on Requests for Travel Abroad of All Members and Personnel of the
Appellate Courts and Trial Courts, and Officials and Personnel of the Supreme Court and the
Office of the Court Administrator.
15
Guidelines on Requests for Travel Abroad on Official Business or Official Time by all
Members and Personnel of the Judiciary.
Page 26 of 29
isolated cases but a series of continuing intentional violations and
excesses, from the day she took office until present. Shall we wait for
more and graver infractions and imprudence?
CLOSING STATEMENT
Reports say that Respondent Sereno was raised by her parents who were
simple public servants. She grew up in a modest environment and lived a simple
lifestyle while excelling in her studies.
Unfortunately, she is no longer the same simple Meilou Sereno people knew
from before.
She must go soon. Either she resigns or is impeached and removed from
office immediately. Her seven (7) years in office, two (2) as an associate justice
and five (5) (!!!) as a chief justice, are more than enough chances to show and
prove her character. We have seen enough. We have experienced enough. It is time
for her to go.
Page 27 of 29
PRAYER
Page 28 of 29
VERIFICATION
I, Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon, of legal age with residence at No. 35, 7th Street,
New Manila, Quezon City, Metro Manila, after having been duly sworn, depose
and say:
1. That I am the complainant in the above entitled More Lies, More Lies and
More Lies of Maria Lourdes (as Verified Reply to her Verified Answer);
3. That the allegations therein contained are true and correct based on my
personal knowledge or based on authentic records or public documents.
Page 29 of 29