Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno’s dissenting opinion on the Supreme Court’s Nov. 15, 2011, temporary restraining order (TRO) constituted the bulk of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima’s testimony at the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona Thursday.
On Day 23 of the trial, De Lima said Corona had “ascendancy” over the other Supreme Court justices, citing as basis Sereno’s dissenting opinion on the TRO on a justice department travel ban on former President and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
After Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile ruled that De Lima’s testimony based on Sereno’s opinion was hearsay though it was allowed to stand the prosecutor, Representative Raul Daza of Northern Samar, expressed a wish that Sereno volunteer to testify on the circumstances of the issuance of the TRO.
The prosecution claims that Corona had voted in favor of Arroyo in more than 80 percent of the cases involving her.
Internal workings
De Lima, under questioning by Senator Franklin Drilon, detailed why Corona purportedly had ascendancy over the other justices.
“In decisions, the Chief Justice has only one vote. But there are things, matters, workings of the Supreme Court, that since the Chief Justice is primus inter pares, and he’s the chief executive or administrative officer of court, only he can issue orders,” she said.
Citing the high court’s internal rules, De Lima said only Corona could order the immediate inclusion of any matter in the agenda and inform the clerk of court on the action taken by the high tribunal based on his notes, approve draft minutes and give the final approval on the release of resolutions, among others.
“We should remember these functions or powers of the Chief Justice in the internal workings of the Supreme Court in light of the irregularities exposed by Justice Sereno,” she said.
“If the Chief Justice gives the final approval for the release of resolutions, only he knows whether the resolution to be released is correct or not. In both the dissenting opinions of Justice Sereno and Justice [Antonio] Carpio, the unsigned extended resolutions and minute resolutions were no longer routed to the other members of the court before these were released. That’s clear,” she added.
De Lima also cited alleged irregularities in the Nov. 15 TRO, this time quoting from Carpio’s Dec. 13 dissenting opinion. She said the phrase “failure to post the bond within the aforesaid period that will result in the automatic lifting of the temporary restraining order” was also not tackled during the en banc session.
And then quoting Sereno’s dissenting opinion and Carpio’s Nov. 24 letter to Corona, De Lima said that a subsequent Nov. 18 resolution arising from a special session failed to mention two significant matters voted on: whether there was compliance with the conditions for the TRO lifting, and whether the TRO was suspended since there was no compliance.
TRO ‘defects’
This resolution, De Lima said, only ordered Arroyo’s camp to submit their compliance with one of the conditions for the lifting of the TRO.
“Justice Carpio noticed that defect in the Nov. 18 resolution, according to him and according to Justice Sereno. That’s why he wrote Corona and requested that the matter be clarified on Nov. 22. The Chief Justice assigned Justice Presbitero Velasco to write the clarificatory resolution in coordination with Justice Carpio,” she said.
Carpio and Velasco agreed that Arroyo had not complied with one of the conditions, but disagreed on the matter of whether the TRO had been suspended, De lima said.
Corona’s version
“The problem was, Chief Justice sent a version of the clarificatory resolution, and that Carpio noticed that this was more incorrect. Because in the Chief Justice’s version, there was substantial compliance with the conditions, and the TRO was not deemed suspended,” she said.
That’s why the high court met anew in a session on Nov. 29 and voted 7-6 that there was no compliance with one of the conditions for the lifting of the TRO, and 6-7, that the TRO was not suspended, after one member “turned around,” De Lima added.
“Since he has the power to issue such resolutions, mistakes have emerged,” she said.
Wrong pronouncements
Likewise, Supreme Court spokesperson Midas Marquez also issued wrong pronouncements, De Lima said, quoting Sereno.
“There were maneuverings in the internal actions of the Supreme Court to favor one party of a case,” she said.
De Lima said that while she relied on the opinion of Sereno, she also had personal knowledge of certain aspects of the opinion, including the nonpromulgation of Sereno’s Dec. 2, 2011, dissenting opinion and Marquez’s “misrepresentation of issues.”
She pointed out that she did not receive a copy of the dissenting opinion.
Because the high court justices had been barred from testifying in the Senate, Senator Antonio Trillanes IV moved that the Senate allow the service of “written interrogatories” (requests for further information) to Sereno. The Senate decided to tackle this in Monday’s caucus.