Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno (Photo by LYN RILLON / Philippine Daily Inquirer)
“A sad day for justice.”
This was how Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno’s camp reacted to the decision of the House justice committee on Wednesday denying her to be represented by a counsel and to cross-examine through her lawyers witnesses and complainant at the hearing.
“This is a sad day for justice in this country that the Chief Justice, who has fought steadfastly to uphold the Constitution and the right of the citizens, has now been denied her own constitutional rights,” Atty. Josa Deinla, one of the spokespersons of Sereno, said in statement.
During the justice committee inquiry, its members voted 30-4 to deny Sereno’s motion seeking her right to counsel and cross-examination, which her camp slammed as “a clear violation of the provisions enshrined in the Constitution.”
READ: House justice committee bars Sereno’s lawyers to cross-examine witnesses
The position papers submitted by opposition lawmakers supporting Sereno’s motion were likewise denied by majority members of the committee.
Despite the setback from the House, Deinla said the chief magistrate remained optimistic as she looks forward to defending herself in the Senate.
“The Chief Justice is eager to defend herself consistent with her rights and looks forward to her trial before the Senate, where she is hopeful her rights will be fully respected,” she said.
Deinla said the majority of the committee disregarded Sereno’s fundamental rights as a respondent in an impeachment proceeding.
“While it is the House which under the Constitution, has the ‘exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment’ it can conduct the impeachment process only in accordance with the standards imposed in other provisions in the Constitution including the fundamental rights of the respondent,” she said.
Invoking Section 13(2) of the House Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, the House panel has denied Sereno to be represented by a counsel.
According to the rule: “the participation of counsel for the witness during the hearing and while the witness is testifying shall be limited to advising on the legal rights of the said witness.”
“It is difficult to understand how this rule can defeat the rights of the Chief Justice to counsel when this right is enshrined not only in the very Rules or Procedure on Impeachment but in the Constitution itself that is read into such rules,” Deinla said.
She said the rule that the committee invoked was not applicable in the first place because the subject matter is an impeachment process, not an investigation in aid of legislation, noting Section 6 of the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment recognizes the right of a respondent to cross-examine.
She said that an impeachment proceeding, while not a criminal prosecution per se, is akin to a criminal trial.
“It partakes of the nature of a criminal case or a criminal investigation,” Deinla said, as she noted that Section 16, Rule VII of the House Rules on Impeachment expressly provides that the Rules of Criminal Procedure under the Rules of Court “shall, as far as practicable, apply.”
“Under the Constitution, the right to be heard and be defended by counsel in all stages of a criminal proceeding is a very basic right of an individual, which not even this Honorable Committee, indeed Congress, can take away from a respondent in an impeachment proceeding,” she added.
Deinla likewise said the right to counsel is accorded to every person not only at the time of his presentation in a trial, but even as early as his investigation for any offense.
As to the right to cross-examination, Deinla said only the Chief Justice has the prerogative to choose how to exercise such right—in person or through counsel of her choice.
“Cross-examination through counsel is not only part of due process, it will even aid the Committee in finding out the truth about the allegations against the Chief Justice,” she said, noting that Sereno could not understand why her right to cross-examination through counsel was even subject to debate.
Lawyer-complainant Lorenzo “Larry” Gadon is accusing Sereno of culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal of public trust.
The House justice panel has deemed the complaint sufficient in form, substance and grounds, and it has scheduled a hearing on Wednesday to determine the case’s probable cause.
But upon being prevented to cross-examine witnesses and Gadon at the hearing, Sereno’s lawyers excused themselves and left. /je