(UPDATED — 2:48 p.m.) MANILA, Philippines — Voting 30-4, the House Committee on Justice on Wednesday thumbed down Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno’s plea to allow her lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses in the impeachment complaint filed against her.
The lawmakers who favored the chief justice’s motion were Dinagat Islands Rep. Arlene “Kaka” Bag-ao, Siquijor Rep. Ramon “Rav” Rocamora, and Quezon City Rep. Jose Christopher “Kit” Belmonte, and Agusan Del Norte Rep. Lawrence Fortun.
‘Sad day for justice’
In a statement issued following the House’s decision, Sereno’s camp said that Nov. 22 was a “sad day for justice,” adding that the top magistrate was looking forward to defend herself in the Senate.
“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,” said lawyer Josa Deinla, one of the spokespersons of Sereno.
Despite the setback from the House, Deinla, said the chief justice “remained optimistic that she will have her day in court.”
“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 her 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,” according to Sereno’s spokesperson.
Deila said the committee erred in denying the Chief Justice of her right to be represented by counsel by invoking Section 13(2) of the House Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation.
Such particular rule provides that “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 pointed out.
‘Not applicable’
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. Even the position of the committee that Sereno must conduct the cross-examination herself, concedes that she has such a right.
Section 13(2) of the rules on House investigations purports to restrict the role of the counsel of a witness in inquiries in aid of legislation.
However, Deinla insisted that the chief justice was not a mere witness, but a respondent in an impeachment proceeding. “As such, she has the rights of an accused in criminal cases or of a person under investigation which includes the right to cross-examination through counsel.”
She said that an impeachment proceeding, while not a criminal prosecution per se, is analogous 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.”
