Two Supreme Court Associate Justices – Teresita de Castro and Francis Jardeleza – agreed with their fellow magistrate Noel Tijam’s observation that Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno might have underestimated the danger in conducting trials on Maute cases in Mindanao.
Sereno was accused of committing culpable violation of the Constitution for allegedly delaying the resolution of Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II’s request to hold Maute cases in Metro Manila instead of conducting the proceedings in Mindanao to ensure the safety of judges and other court personnel.
Earlier in the hearing, Tijam said that as he was trying to decipher the delay, it reminded him of Sereno voting with the minority rejecting the expansion of martial law in the entire Mindanao.
“I am of the thought that probably, the reason why the Chief Justice didn’t act on it because she wasn’t satisfied that the danger, the risk, the harm that may befall the non-transfer of the Maute prisoners to Manila would be that large, would be that extensive, so it could be that but regardless of the thoughts, the sentiments, the feelings of the Chief Justice, she should have taken the initiative of bringing it into the attention of the en banc,” Tijam said.
Deputy Speaker Gwendolyn Garcia read that portion of Tijam’s statement before the panel and asked other justices whether they agree with Tijam’s observation.
De Castro answered: “Looking back, I agree with the observation made by Justice Tijam.”
Jardeleza, for his part, said: “To my mind, Mr. Chair, the observations of my colleague Justice Tijam are both possible and plausible.”
Retired Justice Arturo Brion, meanwhile, begged off from answering.
“I was no longer with the court when the martial law case came up, but had I been with the court I would’ve voted with the majority as a member of the majority but I didn’t want to speculate on the motivation of those in the minority so I respectfully beg off from answering,” Brion said.