MANILA, Philippines—The Senate impeachment court has to seriously weigh the pros and cons of inviting Supreme Court Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno lest it be accused of engaging in a “fishing expedition,” Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said Saturday.
“Is it a legal thing to do? Second, is it proper? If she volunteers, why do we need to send an invitation? What worries me is that we might be contributing to criticism that we are on a fishing expedition,” Sotto said in an interview.
Besides, the Senate also doesn’t want to end up “getting embarrassed if we decide to issue the invitation and the Supreme Court en banc rejects the invitation,” he added.
That’s why, the prosecution’s request to invite Sereno to appear at the trial for Article 7, and Senator Antonio Trillanes IV’s motion to send written “interrogatories” to the justice would be tackled in Monday’s Senate caucus, Sotto said.
Article 7 accuses Corona of betrayal of public trust for allegedly issuing a temporary restraining order against a travel ban on former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
The court had earlier ruled as hearsay Justice Secretary Leila de Lima’s testimony on irregularities cited by Sereno in her dissenting opinion on the November 15, 2011 TRO issued by the Supreme Court.
The prosecution, which will submit a pleading on the request, said Sereno would testify only on relevant matters and not touch on confidential matters in view of the rulings by the impeachment court and the Supreme Court against compelling magistrates to testify in the trial.
In Senator Gregorio Honasan’s view, Sereno’s testimony would be helpful but not “crucial in the sense that her opinion is a dissenting opinion.”
“Let’s not clutter the evidentiary space with too much technicalities and legalities.… We tend to focus on the dissenting opinion. Being a collegial and consensual body, the Supreme Court makes the ruling based on the opinion of the majority,” he said in a telephone interview.
“To make the issue hang on the single information of a dissenting opinion by an associate justice who expressed a minority view is cutting it too thin,” he added.
An invitation for Sereno has to conform with the rules of the impeachment court and the high court. And if this is rejected by the Supreme Court, the Senate should not push it, Honasan said.
“We can’t clash on this. The Senate and the Supreme Court have been behaving very well, in statesman-like fashion.’’
Senator Francis Pangilinan, for his part, said judicial privilege should not get in the way of the impeachment court’s mandate to try and decide Corona’s case.
“Judicial privilege exists, yes, but it cannot be invoked to cover up for wrongdoing nor can it be invoked to undermine or defeat the constitutional mandate of the Senate having sole power to try and decide impeachment cases,” he said in a text message.
Pangilinan said that the impeachment court should assert its “supremacy” in terms of exercising exclusive jurisdiction over the impeachment trial.
“We cannot allow the Supreme Court to dictate, by way of restraining orders and court rulings. How are we to try and decide this case?” he said.
Pangilinan said that securing the consent of the high court before any judiciary witness could testify in the trial “undermines our powers and the prerogatives as the only constitutional check to excesses in the SC.”
“How can they explain this anomalous situation wherein we need to secure the consent of the court for witnesses to appear before us in a trial wherein the chief justice himself is being tried?” he said.
Corona’s defense lawyers said that Sereno, if she volunteers to testify, would have to reckon with the principles of judicial privilege and confidentiality that govern Supreme Court deliberations, and eventually, get the court’s consent, too.