REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT MANILA EN BANC JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, Petitioner, -versusG.R. No.

199082

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HON. LEILA DE LIMA, in her capacity as SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Respondents. x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY INHIBITION1

COMES NOW PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel, and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that: I. PREFACE it is made clear to the occupants of the bench that outside of pecuniary interest, relationship or previous participation in the matter that calls for adjudication, there may be other causes that could conceivably erode the trait of objectivity, thus calling for inhibition. That is to betray a sense of realism, for the factors that lead to preferences or predilections are many and varied. It is well, therefore, that if any such should make its appearance and prove difficult to resist, the better course for a judge is to disqualify himself. That way, he avoids being misunderstood. His reputation for probity and objectivity is preserved. What is even more important, the ideal of an impartial administration of justice
1

Thereby,

Many of the contents of this Motion are identical or similar to the Motion for Inhibition filed in G.R. No. 199046 (Arroyo v. Secretary of Justice) due to parallelism of the situation obtaining herein and in the said case, but there are new and/or additional allegations peculiar to the circumstances of this case.

Page |2

is lived up to. Thus is due process vindicated. (Mateo, et al. v. Hon. Villaluz, G.R. Nos. L-34756-59 March 31, 1973)

II. NATURE OF MOTION 1. This is a motion respectfully imploring that Madame Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno forthwith voluntarily RECUSE herself from the aboveentitled case, on the following III. GROUNDS
A.

That the Chief Justice has demonstrated bias and partiality towards the present administration, whose alter ego the Secretary of Justice is one of the respondents in this case, as shown by her voting record in previous cases;

B.

That the Chief Justice is subservient to the Aquino-Cojuangco Family, whose interests cannot be divorced from the instant case, as shown by antecedent facts, and one of whose members the incumbent President has shown unwarranted interest in the outcome of the present case; and

C.

That the Chief Justice has prejudged the case, as in fact she has openly and directly coached the Solicitor-General as to the matters that should be included in his Memorandum in order to obtain a favorable ruling in this case.

IV.

Page |3

DISCUSSION A. That the Chief Justice has demonstrated bias and partiality towards the present administration, whose alter ego the Secretary of Justice is one of the respondents in this case, as shown by her voting record in previous cases

2. Judicial notice may be taken of how Chief Justice Sereno had always voted in favor of the present administration in a slew of important cases, to wit: a. The Truth Commission (Biraogo v. Truth Commission and companion cases, G.R. No. 192935 192936, 07 December 2010): The majority ruled that the Commission, which was formed specifically to probe the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Sereno, then Associate Justice, voted otherwise; b. The Impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas

Gutierrez (Gutierrez v. House of Representratives, G.R. NO. 193459, 08 March 2011): The then Ombudsman Gutierrez had asked this Court in September 2010 to stop the Committee on Justice in the House of Representatives from proceeding with the impeachment hearing against her. The majority voted to grant her prayer for a status quo ante order; then Justice Sereno dissented; c. The Arroyo DOJ Watchlist Cases (Jose Miguel Arroyo v. Sec. De Lima, et al., G.R. Nos. 199046 [the present case] and companion case): The issuance of a TRO sought by former President Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel (herein Petitioner): This Court

Page |4

issued a TRO which stopped the Department of Justice from enforcing its travel ban against the Arroyo couple. Sereno disagreed with the decision, with attendant extraordinary circumstances as shall be discussed infra; d. The PS Bank Dollar Account Case (Philippine Savings Bank v. Senate Impeachment Court, G.R. No. 200238, 09 February 2012): PS Bank had sought a TRO from this Court after then Chief Justice Corona's dollar accounts were brought up in his impeachment trial at the Senate, on the ground that under the law, foreign currency deposit accounts (FCDAs) were absolutely privileged. The majority voted for the issuance of the TRO. Chief Justice Sereno dissented; e. The release of SC records and appearance of Court employees in Corona's impeachment trial (Per Curiam Resolution dated 14 February 2012): A majority resolution stopped court employees from testifying in the Impeachment Trial. But then Associate Justice Sereno, in a separate opinion, voted in favor of providing the Senate with Court documents related to the allegations brought up by the prosecution against then Chief Justice Corona, as well as in allowing Court employees to testify before the impeachment court. 3. Parenthetically, Chief Justice Sereno was one of those who was asked to testify against CJ Corona at the time, and who evinced a willingness to testify to explain my dissent, but the SC barred her from testifying. 4. All of the above instances illustrate in big bright impasto strokes the propensity of CJ Sereno to vote blindly and consistently in favor of the stand of the present administration whenever it has shown its unequivocal interest and at times a direct hand in a desired result from the Supreme

Page |5

Court. This may be a consequence of her having been plucked from relative obscurity and appointed Associate Justice by the sitting President, a debt of gratitude now magnified many times over by her recent appointment as Chief Justice. 5. In the case at bar, the present government has made it clear, in various public pronouncements, that it considers as top priority the continued incarceration of the Petitioner and his immediate family, particularly former President Arroyo. Thus, as we stated in the prefatory statement of our main Petition, as early as 29 September 2011, President Aquino had already declared that (w)e will be filing one case after the other. We will start in November.2 In the same vein was the Presidents speech before the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines in October of 2011: With respect to the filing of charges, the best information or the latest information that I have is that by November we will be filing charges. So that there can be no mistake as to what the President meant, his redoubtable spokesman emphatically said that but those orders have already been given, the statement has been made, and as public officials., we intend to follow and comply with the orders of the President.3 6. Part and parcel of this declared state policy is the formation of the impugned DOJ-COMELEC Joint Investigative and Preliminary Investigation Panel (hereinafter Joint Panel), which has railroaded the investigation and filing of electoral sabotage charges against former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, in the span of a little over one (1) week, resulting in the filing of the said charge against her, with bail being discretionary. As a result, Mrs. Arroyo was arrested and held without bail for more than eight (8) months. The subsequent granting by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City on 25 July 2012, of which this Honorable Court

President Benigno Aquino III, quoted in the Manila Standard Today, 29 September 2011 Noy himself ordered raps filed vs. GMA, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 14 October 2011

Page |6

may take judicial cognizance, demonstrates beyond peradventure the weakness of the governments case. Being supremely compliant to the will of the present occupant of Malacanang, however, as shown by her voting record, it is more than a fair expectation to anticipate the Chief Justices vote in favor of the governments position in this case that the Joint Panel is not constitutionally infirm, regardless of the merits. B. That the Chief Justice is subservient to the AquinoCojuangco Family, whose interests cannot be divorced from the instant case, as shown by antecedent facts, and one of whose members the incumbent President has shown unwarranted interest in the outcome of the present case

7. As we said, the main respondent in this case is the Secretary of Justice, an alter ego of the President, Benigno Aquino III, whose family has been previously favored and in a big way by the present Chief Justice. 8. In G.R. No. 171101 (Hacienda Luisita Inc. v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, et al., 24 April 2012), the majority of this Court voted to peg the land valuation of the (in)famous Hacienda Luisita for the purpose of determining just compensation for the Cojuangco family (the family of President Aquino's mother) at the value the 1989 fair market value of P40,000 per hectare); the incumbent Chief Justice voted to fix its value at a considerably more astronomical and infinitely more favorable to the Cojuangcos -- 2006 value of P2.5 million per hectare.

Page |7

9. To repeat, now that CJ Sereno has been favored by the President an Aquino-Cojuangco -- twice over, her proclivity to vote in a manner favorable to the Aquino-Cojuangco clan, has also multiplied. 10. Rightly or wrongly, there is the perception being cultivated by Palace spokesmen no less that the incarceration and continued prosecution of Mrs. Arroyo on an electoral sabotage indictment is the lynchpin of the current administrations self-declared crusade for good governance, and a matter of pride and face to the incumbent President; hence, if the Joint Panel is struck down, the sitting President will be embarrassed and his political stock diminished. It is thus not far-fetched to strongly assume that Madame Chief Justice Sereno will once again come to the rescue of President Cojuangco-Aquino III by voting in favor of the Joint Panels legality. C. That the Chief Justice has prejudged the case, as in fact she has openly and directly coached the Solicitor-General as to the matters that should be included in his Memorandum in order to obtain a favorable ruling in this case 11. What proves equally if not most disturbing in this case are the actuations of the CJ during the interpellations following the oral arguments in the above-entitled case. 12. Clear as day, and textually demonstrable from the transcripts of stenographic notes taken down during the 08 December 2011 proceedings, are the obvious and palpable efforts of CJ Sereno to practically coach the Solicitor-General as to what to state in his Memorandum including jurisprudence(!) to bolster the governments chances of a favorable ruling. The Chief Justices solicitude to the Solicitor-General (no pun intended) also cannot be ignored. The transcript speaks for itself, to

Page |8

paraphrase former Chief Justice Coronas public comment on the present Chief Justices appointment. Verbatim quotations from the aforementioned transcript are supplied, for the Honorable Courts ready reference.

SOLGEN CADIZ: Yes, Thank you, Your Honor. JUSTICE CARPIO: Yes, not filed. SOLGEN CADIZ: Yes, Your Honor. JUSTICE SERENO: Solicitor General, are you aware that there is a Manifestation with Motion to Admit that was filed by President Arroyo on 28 November 2011? SOLGEN CADIZ: We have not received the copy, Your Honor. May we have appraised of the nature of the what Im saying if the preliminary

investigation in this case is voided, then its as if it was

JUSTICE SERENO: In that Manifestation with Motion to Admit they are alleging the remedies that they had newly added in their supplemental petition. But you had read the supplemental petition? Okay. The November 28 filing here which most probably did not obtain before this

Page |9

hearings were conducted, reiterated their prayer for a TRO and asked anew for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and asked the Court to set it at the earliest possible En Banc session which means that the Court can actually take cognizance of that request for a writ of mandatory preliminary injunction next week, on 13 December. SOLGEN CADIZ: I think it is fair that we should be given a chance to vigorously oppose that, Your Honor. JUSTICE SERENO: Okay. So I think, counsel has to ensure that they get a copy of that Manifestation with Motion to Admit because if the Court rules on their prayer for a Mandatory Preliminary Injunction with a TRO that has been newly formulated, in which case they ask that all the effects of the Constitution construction, of the DOJ COMELEC the filing panel of be the completely nullified which means, in a liberal including information and the warrant of arrest, to revert the parties to the status quo ante which means that in conjunction with the case, if it is lifted and President Arroyo is able to go abroad, then what happens to your case? SOLGEN CADIZ: Yes, Im quite bothered, Your Honor, because the next En Banc will be on Tuesday, and we have not received the copy of such motion and much more

P a g e | 10

JUSTICE ABAD: You need not to be bothered because I have not yet received my copy also. So I dont think the Court is going to, what do you call thatrule on it without hearing you. SOLGEN CADIZ: Thank you very much, Your Honor. And may we be given a chance to oppose it. JUSTICE SERENO: So that is a very important point because here their allegations in my view has an effect on the substance of the merits ofcan actually have the effect of rendering entirely moot these proceedings and it can be dispositive of the entire case, I think. SOLGEN CADIZ: I can see that, Your Honor. JUSTICE SERENO: Okay. So thank you.

SOLEN CADIZ: Thank you very much, Your Honor. JUSTICE SERENO: Now, may I point out to you Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan. In Justice Vicente Mendozas decision, you were saying that, it does not matter if there islet me read from him because he cannot be any clearer. We find the foregoing averments to be unpersuasive. Meaning, that this filing of the criminal cases was just a product

P a g e | 11

of political oppression and therefore the criminal case should be voided, the criminal prosecution and Investigation. First of all, that the filing of the charges is politically motivated, cannot justify the prohibition of a criminal prosecution if there is otherwise evidence to support them. I think Justice Mendoza was laying down a very important has been rule. It is similar if to criminal is other of prosecutions where even if part of the evidence tampered that can with, there the case, evidence allowed support In which finding

conviction, then the finding of conviction will be to stand. can it is also of political important to emphasize that not every losing candidate raise the defense persecution because otherwise there will be no ability to ever run after losing candidates at all for whatever crimes may be charged against them. Okay. Can you kindly elucidate on that concept of being able to sterilize or segregate the evidence so that even if assuming there is political noise behind all of these, the objective finding of probable cause that information can stand. SOLGEN CADIZ: Yes, Your Honor, we will do that in our memorandum. Thank you very much, Your honor. JUSTICE SERENO: which led to the decision of the COMELEC to cause the filing of

P a g e | 12

Another point, would you know, Im not sure that you know. How much is the budget of the COMELEC vs. DOJ for prosecution?

SOLGEN CADIZ: I think I dont have the exact figures, Your Honor, but I think it isbecause prosecution investigation prosecution is the main job of the DOJ, the budget of the COMELEC should pale in comparison to the budget of the DOJ (interrupted) JUSTICE SERENO: Okay. Let me tell you. Let me inform you that I did not get it from any confidential information furnished me, but I got it from the website of the DBM. And the budget for prosecution of COMELEC is ten (10) Million, while the budget of the DOJ is 1.8 Billion. And please look for this in www.DBM.gov.ph GAA2011 and then you look for the DOJ page and the COMELEC page. Okay. Now, let me point out to you what the Court said in BANAT vs. COMELEC In People vs. Basillan, Im reading from the decision, we acknowledged that without the assistance of provincial and city fiscals, and their assistants and staff members and of the state prosecutors of Department of Justice, the prompt and fair investigation and prosecution would of election not be offenses possible. we also committed Okay. stated /in that before or in the course of nationwide elections simply vs. COMELEC Espanol

enfeebled by lack of funds and the magnitude of

P a g e | 13

its

workload

the

COMELEC

did

not

have

sufficient number of legal officers to conduct such investigation and to prosecute such cases.. The prompt investigation, prosecution and disposition of election offenses constitute an indispensable part, so, thus etc. the Court said that this therefore the passage of Section 265 does not violate the Constitution. Okay. Please note that there are many, many cases which emphasized cooperation that and ours is a government functions. of And overlapping

those overlapping functions does not in any way derogate from the integrity and independence of independent constitutional commissions. SOLGEN CADIZ: Yes, Your Honor. JUSTICE SERENO: Okay. In fact, I want you to look at the Constitution itself which talks about the cooperation between the President when the COMELEC wants to deputize law enforcement agencies, the President himself is being asked to give his concurrence to the request of the COMELEC to undertake such deputization. Thus, we dont have those artificial divides where one branch of government functions in a vacuum but each must cooperate economy for so the that purpose of efficiency, important

governmental functions can be pursued. Okay. Now, let me point out also to you that with respect to the composition of the fact-finding

P a g e | 14

team, the fact-finding team actually is quite a big team. Okay. And none of whose members comprise the preliminary investigation panel, is that correct? SOLGEN CADIZ: Yes, Your Honor. I emphasize that, Your Honor. JUSTICE SERENO: Okay. So you cannot say and in fact in many of these cases when there that are teams of government officials are doing their

functions, the Court does not presume that they take dictation from others? SOLGEN CADIZ: That is my premise, Your Honor. JUSTICE SERENO: Okay, so that you emphasize if I heard you right that in fact the preliminary report was not accepted in toto by the PI team and then the PI teams recommendation itself was not fully accepted by the DOJ. In fact, I noticed that Jaime Paz was dropped. SOLGEN CADIZ: By the COMELEC en banc JUSTICE SERENO: By the COMELEC en banc. So you have here layers of independent individuals basically presumed by the law to be undertaking their

P a g e | 15

individual higher

regular

functions

operating

within

their own spheres and modifying as it goes to higher levels modifying the findings of a lower body. Is that correct? SOLGEN CADIZ: Yes, Your Honor. JUSTICE SERENO: Okay. So what is very problematic is that I now find that the electoral sabotage law according to the petitioners counsel GMA; it may even take ten (10) years for the photocopying or the reproduction to take place. Now, here we have two approaches, counsel, and this is basically to be effected by ones philosophy of government. One approach is to have a fine toothcomb and nitpick on due process rights. And find every little loophole and every little defect that might have attended the creation of a fact-finding team, the creation and conduct of a preliminary investigation panel and the final evaluation by the decision-making authority on whether a probable cause finding has been made. Okay. That is one, in which case you slice the victim with a surgical knife, okay, until you find enough slices of his body so you say, its not a viable living organism. But there is also in the Constitution a philosophical view that everything has to be taken in its totality. In fact, that is the philosophy I think from Justice Mendoza when he says that if there is evidence even if its affected in part by defects of a political nature then you can allow it to

P a g e | 16

proceed. When you hear the counsel for petitioner GMA saying that it doesnt matter if it takes ten (10) years, then we relate it to the fact that my own appreciation of the medical statements made in the related watch-list by case, could not be own supported petitioners CGMAs

documents and were in fact, if the papers are correct, debunked by the doctors of CGMA. Is it wrong for the Court to take the holistic view of the constitutional ideals of justice and say that from a holistic point of view, enforcement of the law is important and if there is a violation of due process by the little nitpicking, if there is substantive evidence supporting that probable cause, then it should be allowed to proceed. What is your view on this. SOLGEN CADIZ: I fully agree, Your Honor, in fact I also object to cherry picking like criticism of due process and in fact, Your Honor, that was the whole point of my discussion and conversation today that this must be taken as a whole and that the fact of the giving of due process must be evaluated from the context of whether or not petitioners particularly former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was given the right to be heard, the elementary requirement of due process, Your Honor. JUSTICE SERENO: Because of what seems to be bothersome is that petitioner CGMA has several remedies left

P a g e | 17

and there are many, motion to vacate, a motion to determine probable cause, a motion for reinvestigation, etc., so many remedies that she can file before the COMELEC or before the court, the RTC in Pasay. What is bothersome is for the highest court to hear that it is even possible for delay to be occasioned at the same time that she is asking this Court, to immediately allow her to leave because of a medical condition that was never proven even by her own evidence. In other words, let me be as blunt as possible because I think this case will rise and fall on the appreciation of this question. Is there a right if there is evidence that there is not full candor on the part of someone who is being investigated about the reasons for leaving and there are from her own evidence indications that she does not fully want to address the question of guilt or innocence when actually judicial notice can be taken of what has been already set in the SET findings, there is that Affidavit, you have this. And now she is asking for the grant of a right, the respect of which can take (10) ten years to satisfy. Does it not actually assume that underlying all these questions, does a person under preliminary investigation have the right to make all processes of the law, small, big, large, extreme, in order to evade the jurisdiction of the country for its the enforcement of its laws. In other words, is there a right to escape?

SOLGEN CADIZ:

P a g e | 18

Definitely not, Your Honor, that is what we are fighting here. That is what we are arguing here. She should not escape. JUSTICE SERENO: Can this be supported in your understanding of a constitutional democracy? SOLGEN CADIZ: Yes, You Honor. JUSTUCE SERENO: Okay. I would be very interested to find out if you can SOLGEN CADIZ: We will do that, Your Honor. JUSTICE SERENO: If you can do that for us? Okay. xxxx xxxxxx JUSTICE SERENO: Okay. Maybe I also ask you ? Okay. May I also point out to you that the major point of the Manifestation with Motion to Admit that they were pushing for, was that petitioner CGMA were not given copies of all the documents which, in their words, may take even ten (10) years to produce. So I want to understand why this remedy that they are saying they need very badly can be the subject of an argument writ of preliminary injunction? Okay. SOLGEN CADIZ:

P a g e | 19

Yes, well address that in our memorandum. JUSTICE SERENO: Okay. Thank you, counsel. SOLGEN CADIZ: Thank you very much, Your Honor.4 13. Manifest it is from the foregoing exchange that: 13.1. The CJ was virtually telling the Solicitor-General how to defend the position of the government, even supplying the arguments and supporting jurisprudence, to which the Solicitor-General noddingly agreed with servility; indeed, the CJ was all but writing the governments Memorandum herself; 13.2. The CJ was overly solicitous of the Solicitor-General,5 to the extent of expressing concern that he (Solicitor-General) may not have been aware of a Manifestation with Motion to Admit filed by the counsels for former President Arroyo, and the danger that the same may remain unopposed by the government, a fear immediately allayed by Mr. Justice Abad; and 13.3. The CJs abnormal interest in the purported escape of former President Arroyo; in fact, her use of the word escape immediately betrays her bias and slant; 14. All of these acts and circumstances, when added up, weave a tapestry of prejudice and unfairness that may only be ignored at the peril of trenching upon the Petitioners constitutionally-guaranteed rights of due process and an impartial judge and tribunal; 15. CJ Serenos conduct in this case unmistakably exposes her adherence to the governments line that Petitioner Arroyo and his wife are
4

TSN, 08 December 2011, pp. 206-221; emphasis ours Again, no pun intended

P a g e | 20

guilty of electoral sabotage, and worse, that it is permissible to forget about due process considerations in order to prosecute them. 16. Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court says that:
Section 1. Disqualification of judges.No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record. A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above. (emphasis supplied)

17. Pardon us for presenting this Court with an idle parade of familiar learning, but we must cite some authorities to support our prayer. 18. Our Bill of Rights guarantees that "[n]o person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law."6 A critical component of due process is a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal; an unbroken chain of jurisprudence teaches us that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge for all the other elements of due process, like notice and hearing, would be meaningless if the ultimate decision would come from a partial and biased judge.7 Well-known is the judicial norm that judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial.8

Section 14(1), Article III, 1987 Constitution

Tan, Jr. v. Gallardo, 73 SCRA 306 [1976]; Castillo v. Juan, 62 SCRA 124 [1975]; Mateo v. Villaluz, 50 SCRA 18 [1973]; Garcia v. Executive Secretary. 6 SCRA 1 [1962]
8

Dela Cruz v. Judge Bersamira, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1567, 19 January 2001

P a g e | 21

19. By acting the way she did, the Chief Justice has shown that in deciding this case, she has put personal predilections over and above the letter of the law, to the extent of locking horns with the majority. She thus shows that deficiency in the requisite objectivity that should suffuse all the official acts of a judge. If she is to serve her oath well, she has no recourse but to recuse herself; there is no other way. After all, as Chief Justice Marshall once said in Osborne v. Bank of the United States:9 Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature; or in other words, to the will of the law." 20. In Latorre vs. Ansaldo10 this Court, ruling on a similar issue as the one herein raised, held that:
Judges must at all times maintain and preserve the trust and faith of parties litigants in the court's impartiality, and that the slightest doubt in the actions of a judge, whether well grounded or not, will leave the judge no better alternative than to rescue himself as the ideal mode to preserve the image of the judiciary.11 By inhibiting himself, he avoids being misunderstood, his reputation for probity and objectivity is preserved. More importantly, the ideal of impartial administration of justice is lived up to.12
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/may2001/am_rtj_0 0_1563.htm - _edn18

In Orola vs. Alovera,13 We reiterated that when a judge exhibits actions that give rise, fairly or unfairly, to perceptions of bias, such faith and confidence are eroded, and he has no choice but to inhibit himself voluntarily. A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation, but when circumstances appear that will induce doubt on his honest actuation and probity in favor of either party, or incite such state of mind, he should conduct a careful selfexamination. He should exercise his discretion in a way that the peoples faith in the courts of justice is not impaired. The better course for the judge is to disqualify himself.14
9

9 Wheat. 738, 866 A.M. No. RTJ-00-1563. May 31, 2001 Gutang v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 77 [1998].

10

11

12

Intestate Estate of the Late Vito Borromeo, Patrocinio Borromeo-Herrera v. Fortunato Borromeo and Hon. Francisco P. Burgos, Judge of the CFI of Cebu, Branch II, 152 SCRA 171 [1987], citing Bautista v. Rebueno, 1 SCRA 535 [1978].
13

G. R. No. 111074, July 14, 2000.

14

Orola v. Alovera, supra, Note 19, citing Garcia v. Burgos, 291 SCRA 546, 580 [1998], citing Bautista v. Rebueno, 81 SCRA 535, 538 [1978]; Bagunas v. Fabillar, 289 SCRA 383, 393 [1998].

P a g e | 22

21. And in Alejo vs. Pestao-Buted,15 the lack of faith of the litigant in respondent judge was declared as a valid cause to behoove the judge to recuse himself. Hence:
Given the prosecutions apparent lack of faith in respondent judge, she was placed in a difficult position. Should she acquit the accused, her decision will appear to be tainted with bias. Such a situation is highly detrimental, not only to the image of the trial court, but to the integrity of the judicial system. Like Caesars wife, a judge must be beyond suspicion and that he should maintain nothing less than cold neutrality and impartiality. Otherwise, the wisest course for a judge would be to disqualify himself.

IV. PRAYER WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, it is most respectfully prayed that Madame Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno voluntarily RECUSE herself from further and other proceedings in this case. Other and further reliefs as may be just and equitable in the premises are likewise prayed for. Pasig City for Manila, 05 September 2012.

TOPACIO LAW OFFICE Counsel for Petitioner/Movant Suite 107, Skyway Twin Towers H.Javier Street, Ortigas Center Pasig City, Metro Manila Telephone Number (+632)5710270 Fax Number (+632)5711626 Email address: toplawoffice@gmail.com By:
15

TOPLAW

G.R. Nos. 154150-51, December 10, 2007

P a g e | 23

FERDINAND S. TOPACIO Attorneys Roll No. 38271 IBP Lifetime Membership No. 562537 PTR No. 6881405/1.24.12/ Pasig City MCLE COMPLIANCE NO. III-0017589 Issued 24 June 2010 and

JOSELITO O. LOMANGAYA IBP O.R. No. 878159/ 01.04.12/ Makati City PTR No. 1300321 / 01.03.12 / Mandaluyong Roll of Attorneys No. 47328 MCLE COMPLIANCE No. III - 0014660 Issued on 23 April 2010

Copy furnished (registered mail with return card):

Law Office of Estelito P. Mendoza and Associates 4th Flr., Dynavision Building 108 Rada St., Legaspi Village Makati City Attys. Anacleto M. Diaz, Maria Rosario Z. del Rosario, Christian B. Diaz and Analene V. Balisong 6th Floor Padilla Building F. Ortigas, Jr. Road (formerly Emerald Avenue) Ortigas Center, Pasig City Office of Solicitor General 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village 1229 Makati City Hon. Leila M. De Lima Secretary Department of Justice P. Faura St., Ermita, Manila Atty. Ricardo V. Paras III Chief State Counsel Department of Justice P. Faura St., Ermita, Manila Commissioner Ricardo A. David Jr. Bureau of Immigration

P a g e | 24

2nd Flr., BOI Building Magallanes Drive, 1000 Intramuros Manila

P a g e | 25

EXPLANATION

A copy of the foregoing Motion is being served on Respondents via registered mail due to distances involved and time constraints. The indulgence of this Honorable Office is therefore implored.

F. S. TOPACIO

Law Office of Estelito P. Mendoza and Associates

P a g e | 26

4th Flr., Dynavision Building 108 Rada St., Legaspi Village Makati City Attys. Anacleto M. Diaz, Maria Rosario Z. del Rosario, Christian B. Diaz and Analene V. Balisong 6th Floor Padilla Building F. Ortigas, Jr. Road (formerly Emerald Avenue) Ortigas Center, Pasig City Office of Solicitor General 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village 1229 Makati City Hon. Leila M. De Lima Secretary Department of Justice P. Faura St., Ermita, Manila Atty. Ricardo V. Paras III Chief State Counsel Department of Justice P. Faura St., Ermita, Manila Commissioner Ricardo A. David Jr. Bureau of Immigration 2nd Flr., BOI Building Magallanes Drive, 1000 Intramuros Manila Law Office of Estelito P. Mendoza and Associates 4th Flr., Dynavision Building 108 Rada St., Legaspi Village Makati City Attys. Anacleto M. Diaz, Maria Rosario Z. del Rosario, Christian B. Diaz and Analene V. Balisong 6th Floor Padilla Building F. Ortigas, Jr. Road (formerly Emerald Avenue) Ortigas Center, Pasig City Office of Solicitor General

P a g e | 27

134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village 1229 Makati City Hon. Leila M. De Lima Secretary Department of Justice P. Faura St., Ermita, Manila Atty. Ricardo V. Paras III Chief State Counsel Department of Justice P. Faura St., Ermita, Manila Commissioner Ricardo A. David Jr. Bureau of Immigration 2nd Flr., BOI Building Magallanes Drive, 1000 Intramuros Manila