MANILA – (UPDATED) The Supreme Court en banc, except for Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno “who is recused,” has allowed Associate Justice Teresita De Castro to testify at the hearing being conducted by the House Committee on Justice on the impeachment complaint against Sereno.
This is according to Supreme Court spokesperson Atty. Theodore Te in an interview with reporters on Tuesday.
He said that regarding the invites by the House Committee to the justices and other Supreme Court officials, those invited to testify on administrative matters – meaning “how the court is run” – “may do so if they wish”. The Supreme Court is not requiring them to do so, but is giving them clearance if they wish to appear before the House Committee.
As for adjudicative matters, “meaning matters that go into the decision of cases”, such as the deliberation of cases, only Justice De Castro is authorized to appear before the House Committee.
The SC is allowing her to testify only on three matters.
1. The issuance of a temporary restraining order in the “senior citizens cases” (presumably Supreme Court in G.R. No. 206844-45, Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines v. COMELEC, where De Castro supposedly recommended the issuance of a TRO and sent a draft to Sereno’s office, only for the final version that emerged from Sereno to be different); and on the exchange of communications between De Castro and Sereno. De Castro cannot discuss any matters regarding the deliberation of the case.
2. The “clustering case” involving the Judicial and Bar Council. De Castro is allowed to discuss the merits of her main decision, but cannot discuss any matters regarding the deliberation of the case.
3. The case involving then Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza (who is now Associate Justice). De Castro is authorized to discuss the merits of her separate concurring opinion, but not the deliberations that went into it.
SC En Banc action on the Comm on Justice invitations to AJs and SC officials to testify in relation to the impeachment complaint against the CJ–1. On Admin matters, any official invited may testify; 2. On Adjudication, only AJ De Castro is authorized and only on 3 matters. pic.twitter.com/mE6GA9Pc1V
— Supreme Court PIO (@SCPh_PIO) November 28, 2017
LAGMAN: EN BANC CONSTRICTED TESTIMONY
Commenting on the en banc’s authorization order, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said the order effectively limits de Castro’s testimony, which is a good thing, he said, as it would “preserve the confidentiality of the Court’s deliberations and foreclose the public washing of ‘dirty linen’ of the High Court and prevent the spectacle of disclosing the ‘squabbles’ among some justices.”
The strict confidentiality rule has been explained as one of the strengths of the high tribunal, giving what is described as the “weakest branch of government” some protection from pressure or harassment.
Albay noted the SC en banc “has constricted the projected testimony of Associate Justice Teresita de Castro to purely administrative matters and not to delve on the deliberations of the High Court which led to the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in the Senior Citizens party-list case.”
Justice De Castro was also limited to testify only on the merits of her ponencia in Aguinaldo, et al. vs. President Aquino III (G.R. No. 224302) and her separate concurring opinion in Jardeleza vs. Sereno, et al. (G.R. No. 213181), Lagman pointed out.
GADON-CANLAS NON-EXCHANGE
Last Wednesday, Sereno’s accuser Atty. Lorenzo Gadon said that according to his source, Manila Times reporter Jomar Canlas, De Castro confirmed to him that a TRO had indeed been changed by Sereno.
But on Monday, Canlas, appearing before the House Committee, denied “intimating” to Gadon that his source of information was De Castro.
Canlas also denied that De Castro was his source for the story “Justice blasts Sereno over TRO mess,” which Gadon included in his impeachment complaint.
Gadon then commented on Canlas’ statements, saying, “I cannot really say that he did not disclose it to me,” and added that he could not remember who gave him what information because there were too many people who were giving him information at the time.
De Castro had earlier said in a statement, “I have never released to Jomar Canlas any information, report, or document regarding the work of the Court.”
