De Lima still qualified as next Chief Justice – lawyer
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines – Justice Secretary Leila De Lima is still qualified to be the next Chief Justice despite a pending disbarment case filed against her, an election lawyer said on Tuesday.
Election Lawyer Romulo Macalintal, in an emailed statement said that under existing Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the phrase “pending administrative cases” meant that there was already a formal case against a person.
“The same rule is observed by the Career Executive Service Board in its Circular No.1, Series of 2005 where it is provided that ‘an administrative case is deemed pending when a formal charge has already been filed or instituted by the disciplining authority,’” Macalintal said.
“The disbarment case against De Lima has not reached the stage where she is formally charged or that the evidence of her guilt is strong to justify her exclusion from the list of nominees to the said position,” he said.
De Lima has been nominated by the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Zambales Chapter to replace Renato Corona as Chief Justice after the latter has been removed from office through an impeachment trial.
Critics say De Lima is disqualified due to a pending disbarment case against her.
Last April, the Supreme Court referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines the disbarment case against De Lima and Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda for fact finding investigation.
It was private lawyer Agustin Sundiam who filed the case against the two for their alleged utterances and remarks on national television where they called Chief Justice Renato Corona a “lawless tyrant”.
Sundiam said the two violated their oath as lawyers, which require them to “observe and maintain the respect and dignity due to the courts of justice and judicial offers.”
Under the JBC Rules particularly Rule 4 Section 5, those disqualified from being nominated or appointed to any judicial, Ombudsman or deputy ombudsman position include (1) those with pending criminal or regular administrative cases; (2) those with pending criminal cases in foreign courts or tribunals; (3) and those who have been convicted in any criminal case or in an administrative case where the penalty imposed is at least a fine of more than P10,000 unless he has been grated judicial clemency.
But Macalintal said even the Supreme Court through Senior Associate Justice now acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio, in the case of Board of Trustees of GSIS vs Velasco, et al., February 20, 2011 pointed that those with “pending administrative case is given the benefit of the doubt and considered innocent until the contrary is proven.”
“In other words, De Lima still possesses her constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty which altogether means that the pending disbarment case against her is not a bar to her nomination for Chief Justice,” he said.
“And she is not lacking or wanting of valid credentials to seek this position with her unblemished record as a public official and her more than 15 years in law practice,” Macalintal added.
