MANILA – Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno wanted another colleague off the proceedings on the quo warranto petition filed against her.
The chief justice sought the “compulsory inhibition” of Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro.
Sereno said in a 30-page motion that de Castro must be removed from the case as the latter “repeatedly manifested actual bias, if not personal animosity,” against her.
She said she had “reasonable grounds” to believe that de Castro “already prejudged” the validity of her nomination and subsequent appointment as chief justice in 2012.
Solicitor General Jose Calida initiated the quo warranto petition questioning the appointment of Sereno and her qualification for the post.
Under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, a quo warranto proceeding is an action by the government against a person who unlawfully holds a public office or holds a position where they are not qualified.
In a hearing on the impeachment complaint filed against the chief justice at the House of Representatives, de Castro said Sereno was not qualified for the post for her failure to submit to the Judicial and Bar Council her statements of assets, liabilities and net worth when she was teaching at the University of the Philippines.
“De Castro made her statements under oath and before full presentation of the relevant facts. The perception of bias cannot be ignored,” Sereno said. “De Castro made insinuations about Sereno’s psychological fitness.”
De Castro was the fifth colleague that Sereno wanted to inhibit from the case.
Earlier the chief justice, currently on leave, also called for the removal of associate justices Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, and Noel Tijam.
De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Jardeleza, and Tijam all testified against Sereno in the House justice committee hearing.
“In cases of compulsory inhibition, it is conclusively presumed that the judge cannot render judgment impartially or objectively,” said Sereno. “The judge cannot insist on hearing the case without willfully violating the Constitution.”
De Castro’s participation will violate her right to due process, Sereno argued.
“Considering her (de Castro) high-profile and spirited public participation in the impeachment proceedings … she should, with due respect, bear in mind that her decision ‘to sit or not to sit’ on this case will affect to a great extent ‘the all-important confidence’ of the public in the ability of this Honorable Court to render justice impartially.”/PN
