By Mark Merueñas
GMA News
GMA News
Sereno and De Castro
After accusing Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno of omitting a recommendation she made in the case of a party-list group, Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro has written Sereno once again, this time accusing her of “inaction.”
In her latest letter, De Castro belied Sereno’s claim that she did not include a draft temporary restraining order (TRO) — which is standard practice in the Supreme Court — when she forwarded the case of the Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens of the Philippines party-list to the office of the Chief Justice for approval.
Sereno had earlier written De Castro, claiming that all she got was a synopsis of the case, which the latter had handled. As a result, the TRO written by Sereno was the one announced last May 29 by SC Public Information Chief Theodore Te, which ordered a stop to further party-list proclamations.
The Commission on Elections had disqualified the senior citizens party-list group for allegedly engaging in illegal term sharing, but the high court ruled in favor of the group, which had “obtained a substantial number of votes such that it could materially affect the determination of the allocation of seats for party-list representatives.”
In a full court session on Wednesday, the magistrates decided to issue a status quo ante order against Comelec’s resolution disqualifying the Senior Citizens party-list.
First and second letters
De Castro had earlier contested Sereno’s TRO, saying the chief magistrate omitted her recommendation to stop the disqualification of Senior Citizens party-list only, and not the party-list proclamation itself.
In her latest letter to Sereno dated June 5, a copy of which was obtained by reporters, De Castro said: “I wish to correct a misimpression in your letters… that on May 28, 2013 at 8:05 a.m. what your office received from me was only the synopsis of the above-mentioned cases.”
The associate justice said that from May 27 to 28, she wrote Sereno three different letters with attachments: a synopsis of the case, a draft of her recommended TRO, and the rollos for the case.
De Castro said the first letter she sent Sereno about the case on May 27 already included the three attachments.
The next day, after learning from Clerk of Court Enriqueta Vidal that the party-list group had filed “extremely urgent motions to reiterate the issuance of TRO and and/or status quo ante order,” De Castro sent Sereno a second letter containing the revised synopsis and a second version of a draft TRO that included a clause narrating the new urgent motions.
“The substance of my recommended draft TRO remained the same,” De Castro noted.
After submitting the second set of documents, however, De Castro was informed by the Office of the Clerk of Court that the Senior Citizens party-list had once again filed a supplemental petition to support its original petition seeking to stop its disqualification.
Third letter
“Again, after verifying that you still had not acted on my recommendation, I sent your office at 1:30 p.m. the third version of my draft TRO this time modifying the ‘Whereas’ clauses to include the filing of the supplemental petition,” De Castro said.
She stressed that the substance of her recommendation remained unchanged in the third TRO version.
In her latest letter, De Castro attached photocopies of the set of documents, all with a “Received” stamp from Sereno’s office and bearing the date and time they were delivered.
“I trust this will enlighten you on the real circumstances that occurred on May 28, 2013 while you were out of your office,” she wrote Sereno.
The first time De Castro wrote Sereno a letter to complain about one of the latter’s orders was in December last year, when De Castro accused the Chief Justice of ordering the reopening of a judicial office in the Visayas and made it appear it had the go-signal of the full court when it did not.
Reached for comment, Te said he was not aware of the exchanges between Sereno and De Castro regarding the party-list decision. — KBK, GMA News
- – - – - - – - – - – - – - – -
RELATED STORY:
SC justice to Sereno: Why did you delete my recommendation in TRO vs party-list proclamation?
MARK MERUEÑAS
GMA News
GMA News
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno has been accused of “deleting” a fellow magistrate’s recommendation in the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the high court stopping the Comelec from further proclaiming winning party-list groups in the May 13 elections.
In a letter dated May 29, Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro called the attention of Sereno after the former learned about the deletion of her recommendation that the TRO should only cover the petition of Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines Inc. and no other groups.
In the TRO issued last Wednesday, the SC – through Sereno – acted on a petition from the Senior Citizens party-list group that contested a May 10 resolution by the Comelec disqualifying the group three days before the scheduled elections.
But instead of stopping only the Comelec ruling, the SC TRO covered the entire party-list proclamation process.
“With respect to the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by the Office of the Chief Justice… it appears that the version released by the OCJ omitted my recommendation for the Comelec to be restrained from implementing the assailed Comelec Resolution promulgated on May 10, 2013, delisting and disqualifying petitioner Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines Inc,” De Castro said.
As of posting time, GMA News Online has yet to reach Sereno for her comments.
For his part, Supreme Court Public Information chief and spokesman Theodore Te told GMA News Online: “I have not spoken to her [Sereno] yet.”
Sereno’s TRO
De Castro said she only learned of the supposed omission when she was furnished a copy of Sereno’s TRO last Wednesday.
“The said omission radically changed my recommended action that would have preserved the status quo ante, i.e. to maintain the petitioner in the registry of party-list coaltions, pending disposition of the merits of the case,” she said.
“It is my opinion that the proper subject of the TRO is the enjoinment of the implementation of the assailed Comeelc resolution with respect to the Senior Citizens party-list,” De Castro added.
De Castro said Sereno’s “blanket” TRO against the proclamation of the remaining seats in the party-list may “adversely affect third parties not impleaded in the present case in violation of their right to due process.”
She added that the TRO might be deemed as an “overbroad restriction” of the Comelec’s constitutional right to proclaim winners in the party-list elections, which is “beyond what is necessary in the present case.”
De Castro said there was “merit” in Sereno’s observation that other party-list groups might be affected by the continued proclamation of winners by the Comelec, however, “such a situation is only an extreneous issue and merely anticipatory.”
She said she believed the Senior Citizens party-list would suffer “irreparable injury” if the group is disqualified pending resolution of its petition on the merits.
Not the first time
It was not the first time that De Castro had formally called the attention of Sereno concerning her actions.
In December last year, De Castro revealed how Sereno has reopened a judicial office in the Visayas and made it appear it had the go signal of the full court when it did not.
At the time, De Castro also wrote a letter to Sereno asking her to recall Administrative Order 175-2012, which Sereno reportedly issued to revive the Regional Court Administration Office (RCAO) in Region 7 in Cebu City and delegate Program Management Head Faith Econg as its officer in charge.
De Castro admitted she “regretted having to write” the letter-memorandum but said she had to raise her concern about Sereno’s order that has yet to get the approval of the court en banc.
De Castro stressed that only the court en banc is constitutionally authorized to decide on administrative matters like the reopening of the RCAO-7 and with assistance of the Office of the Court Administrator, currently headed by Midas Marquez.
She said the en banc in a full court session last November 27, 2012 tackled the plan to reopen the RCAO-7 but did not reach a decision because several justices opposed the idea. She added they were under the impression that Sereno, as she had expressed during the session, would make necessary amendments based on the other justices’ concerns. — RSJ, GMA News
No comments:
Post a Comment