Opinion on the impeachment of the Chief Justice

March 18, 2019

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno was appointed on August 16, 2010 as the
169th Justice and on August 24, 2012 as the 24th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. She is
the youngest to be so appointed to Court in this century, and she may also be one of the longest-
serving ever, as she is to mandatorily retire in 2030 after serving a 20-year term.1

Unfortunately, her stint as the Chief Justice may not be for long. On September 2017,
the Committee on Justice of the House of Representatives found Atty. Larry Gadon’s
impeachment complaint against her sufficient in form and substance. Acting on the complaint,
the Committee ruled on March 2018 that there are enough grounds to impeach her.2 It will
draft the articles of impeachment against her, which will be submitted to the House of
Representatives plenary for approval. If at least one-third of the members of said House vote
to impeach her, the complaint would go to trial at the Senate.

The Committee found seven grounds against her3 and a conviction in one ground is
enough to cause her ouster. She is to be impeached for violating the Constitution, corruption,
betrayal of public trust, and other high crimes, because:

a. She “deliberately” failed to file her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth
(SALN) 17 times. She also excluded from her SALN two properties she owned in
Bataan and Davao City.

b. In several instances, she purportedly abused her power as ex-officio Judicial and Bar
Council Chairperson. These include her alleged hand in the exclusion of several Court
of Appeals (CA) Associate Justices from the shortlist of nominees for the position of
CA presiding justice.

c. She undermined and disregarded the separation of powers among the three branches of
government on several occasions. She interfered when she advised the CA justices on
the handling of the detention of the “Ilocos 6.” The six officials were detained at the
House for contempt in connection with the Ilocos government's alleged misuse of
P66.45 million in tobacco funds.

But are these impeachable offenses?

It would seem that they are. As the Chief Justice herself wrote, “[f]ull discretion is
vested in Congress, both the House and the Senate, to determine whether or not an officer
should be impeached, subject only to constitutionally provided limits. … The political
character of the process is underscored by a degree of imprecision in the offenses subject of
impeachment, thus allowing Congress sufficient leeway to describe the acts as impeachable or
not.”4

Article XI, Section 2 of Constitution provides that the Chief Justice, among others, may
be removed from office only after conviction of any of six exclusive grounds: culpable
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or
betrayal of public trust.

1
http://jbc.judiciary.gov.ph/index.php/about-the-jbc/jbc-members/58
2
http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/08/18/house-panel-finds-enough-grounds-to-impeach-sereno
3
http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2018/03/16/Sereno-articles-of-impeachment-Umali.html
4
Chief Justice Sereno’s Concurring opinion in Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives Committee on Justice,
G.R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011
 The Chief Justice is impeached for violating the Constitution, corruption, betrayal of
public trust, and other high crimes. Violation of the Constitution, as an impeachable offense,
does not mean an innocuous violation thereof but must be one of equivalent gravity with the
offenses to which it is associated with. There is corruption if a public official uses public
property for personal use or is found to have acquired an amount of property or money
manifestly out of proportion to his/her salary.5 Betrayal of public trust includes inexcusable
negligence of duty, tyrannical abuse of power, breach of official duty by malfeasance or
misfeasance, cronyism, favoritism, and other similar acts, that prejudice the public interest and
tend to bring one’s office into disrepute.6 And, the commission of other high crimes may be
impeachable because they are of such enormous gravity that they strike at the very life or
orderly working of the government.7

An examination of the grounds, so far revealed, vis-à-vis the foregoing definitions is in

order.

Failure to file her SALN and non-disclosure of properties

Article XI, Section 17 of the Constitution mandates a public officer or employee, upon
assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, to submit a declaration
under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, otherwise known as a SALN. Republic Act
Nos. 3019 and 6713 echo the same obligation.

And this charge has a precedent. In May 2012, former Chief Justice Renato Corona was
found guilty of betraying the public trust and committing culpable violation of the Constitution
when he failed to disclose and accurately declare his bank deposits and properties in his
SALN.8 Now, the embattled Chief Justice faces the same challenge considering that she was
found to have failed to declare two properties in her SALN, and, more importantly, failed to
file her SALN 17 times.

Note must be taken, however, that acts that constitute betrayal of public trust as to
warrant removal from office must be attended by bad faith and of such gravity and seriousness
as the other grounds of impeachment.9 Should the Chief Justice take exception from the rule,
she should prove that her failure to file her SALNs and non-disclosure of properties were not
deliberate and were done in good faith.

Abuse of powers as JBC ex-officio chairperson

The Chief Justice has purportedly abused her power as the JBC Chairperson. This
charge is, again, akin to betrayal of public trust since, as defined, it includes tyrannical abuse
of power, breach of official duty by malfeasance (since abuse of power is an abdication of
one’s duties), and favoritism. That a fellow Associate Justice of the Court revealed this to the
Committee10 strengthens the theory that her acts prejudiced the public interest and brought her
office into disrepute.

5
https://www.gov.ph/documents/20147/233614/ImpeachmentPrimer.pdf/72801f41-71e1-ae60-d5bb-
c69dbf622994?version=1.0
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
https://www.rappler.com/nation/special-coverage/corona-trial/6099-corona-found-guilty
9
Gonzales v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 196231, September 4, 2012
10
Id. at note 3
Disregard of the separation of powers

The Chief Justice is alleged to have disregarded the separation of powers among the
three branches of government when she advised the CA justices on the handling of the
detention of the “Ilocos 6,” who were accused of misusing tobacco funds.

CA Associate Justice Remedios Salazar Fernando revealed that the Chief Justice
instructed CA justices to defy the show cause order issued by the House of Representatives
against three CA justices who ordered the release of six Ilocos officials from detention.
Fernando confirmed that the Chief Justice once talked with the associate justices over lunch.
One of the justices in the meetings told Fernando of the Chief Justice’s advice to them to just
file a petition before the Supreme Court to question the show cause order of the House, and
there she implied that she will make sure that the Court will favor the petition.11

If proved, the offense may constitute a violation of the Constitution and betrayal of
public trust.

Trial at the Senate

Article XI, Section 3 (6) provides that the Senate shall have the sole power to try and
decide all cases of impeachment. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-
thirds of all the Members thereof.

If the House of Representatives vote to proceed to trial, the Senate will hear the same.
It must be emphasized that, within the limitations set forth in the Constitution, impeachment
is a political act.12 This means that the Senators, representing the people, can preside over and
rule on the trial even if they are not judicial officers.

Should the trial proceed, the Chief Justice must stay true to her course and heed her
own words: “Having been elected or appointed for fixed terms, these impeachable officers
enjoy security of tenure, which is intended to enhance their capability to perform their
governmental functions efficiently and independently. However, their tenure … is not carte
blanche authority for them to abuse their powers. In the face of gross governmental abuse, the
people have not been made so powerless by the Constitution as to suffer until the impeachable
officers’ term or appointment expires.”13

11
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2018/01/23/ca-justice-says-sereno-instruction-ilocos-6-case-
irregular-585270
12
Id. at note 4
13
Id.