Mult of the Philippines
House of Representatives
Queso City, Meteo Maxiln
Leity. Cesan Sirait Pareja
Secretary General
orice oF He srEaen
see OeREen aTVS
: var Ui
a UNL AI
MU
FOR : THE HONORABLE SPEAKER eden orts i
SUBJECT : IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST Sl
COURT CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
DATE i 04 September 2017
May we transmit the herein attached original copies of the Impeachment Complaint
filed by Mr. Dante LA. Jimenez, and Atty Eligio P. Mallari against Chief Justice
Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
‘The said Complaint was endorsed by Reps. Mauyag B. Papandayan, Jr., Enrico A.
Pineda, Virgilio S. Lacson, Benhur B. Lopez, Jr., Amolfo A. Teves, Jr., Jerry P.
Trefias, Ben P. Evardone, Rogelio J. Espina, Arthur R. Defensor, Jr., Ferjenel G.
Biron, Joseph Stephen S. Paduano, Raul C. Tupas, Benhur L. Salimbangon, Carlito S.
‘Marquez, Fredenil H. Castro, and Sharon S. Garin.
For your Honor's information and due consideration.
‘Thank you.
C¥F
Enel as stated/digital copy on CD
ce ‘The Honorable Majority Leader
Officer-in-Charge, Legal Affairs Department
Doc No, 12179
‘National Government Center, Constitution Hills, 1126 Quezon City, Philippines
PHONES. 9316216, 9316298; 931500148 locals 7459/7468/7498 « TELEFAX: 9315556, TOS\CRAIMGot29 August 2017 &
CESAR PAREJA
Secretary General
House of Representatives
Quezon City
Sir:
In behalf of his clients, the complainants Dante LA. Jimenez, President/Founding
Chairman, VACC, and Eligio P. Mallari, President, VPCI, the undersigned would like to
submit the digital equivalent of the Verified Complaint for Impeachment against
Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno earlier filed with your good
office.29 August 2017
CESAR PAREJA
Secretary General
House of Representatives
Quezon City
Sir:
In behalf of his clients, the complainants Dante LA. Jimenez, President/Founding
Chairman, VACC, and Eligio P, Mallari, President, VPCT, the undersigned would like to
submit the digital equivalent of the Verified Complaint for Impeachment against
‘Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno earlier filed with your good
office.
HOUSE OF RFORESEN
Office of the Secr Ee y Gen
RECEIVED |Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Quezon City “ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
7 fa FOUNDING Office of the Secretary General
CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT, VOLUNTEERS RECEIVED
AGAINST CRIME AND CORRUPTION 206 wa.
(VACC)AND ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI, oare AUG 15 29fpe Bila
PRESIDENT, VANGUARD OF THE sy i x
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, ING. (VPCD, ’ ~
Complainants,
IMPEACHMENT
-versus- CASE No.
SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO,
Respondent.
Kone nner eee eee ener e eee x
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR IMPEACHMENT
COME NOW, Complainants, unto this honorable House of
Representatives, respectfully allege: 74-47 —
PREFATORY
Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must
at all times be accountabYe! to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and
justice, and lead modest lives. (Art. XI, sec. 1, 1987 Const.)
The impeachable officers are the President, the Vice-President,
the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, and the Ombudsman. They may be impeached upon the
grounds of culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft
and corruption, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust. (see Art.
XI, sec. 2, Const.)
Culpable violation of the Constitution pertains to a willful
violation of the Constitution and excludes acts committed
unintentionally or through an honest mistake of judgment. [Sison, et al.,
Impeachment Q & A (2000) at p. 2]
Treason and bribery should be understood in accordance with
their meanings in the Revised Penal Code. Treason is committed intimes of war by levying war against the Philippines or adhering to the
enemy, giving them aid and comfort:
Bribery is committed by a public officer who (1) receives a gift in
connection with the performance of his official duties in order to
perform an act whether constituting a crime or not, or (2) accepts gifts
offered to him by reason of his office, or (3) being a public officer
entrusted with law enforcement, refrains from arresting or prosecuting
an offender who has committed a crime punishable by life
imprisonment or death, in consideration of a gift or present. ((Sison, et
al., Impeachment Q & A (2000) at p. 3]
Graft and corruption refers to those acts enumerated in the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, including receiving any gift in
connection with any transaction wherein the public officer in his official
capacity has to intervene under the law, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence. (I4.)
Other high crimes and betrayal of public trust have not been
given any definitive meaning in law and jurisprudence. (Id.) Fr. Bernas
explained that “high crimes” refer to those offenses which, like treason
and bribery, are indictable offenses and are of such enormous gravity
that they strike at the very life or orderly working of the government and
that the phrase “betrayal of public trust” was intended as a catch-all
phrase to cover any violation of the oath of office.
Commissioner de los Reyes, who had been responsible for the insertion
of the phrase, said that it referred to all acts, even if not punishable by
statute as penal offenses, which would render the officer unfit to
continue in office. He enumerated betrayal of public interest,
inexcusable negligence of duty, tyrannical abuse of power, breach of
official duty by malfeasance or misfeasance, cronyism, favoritism, etc.
to the prejudice of public interest and which tend to bring the office
into disrepute. To which Commissioner Romulo added
obstruction of justice. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines: A Commentary, 2009 Ed. at p..1153)
In the case of Galman v. Sandiganbayan [144 SCRA 43 (19830)], the
Supreme Court held that:
“The notion nurtured under the past regime that those appointed to
public office owe their primary allegiance to the appointing authority and are
accountable to him alone and not to the people or the Constitution must be
2discarded. The function of the appointing authority with the mandate of the
people, under our system of government, is to fill the public posts. While the
appointee may acknowledge with gratitude the opportunity thus given of
rendering public service, the appointing authority becomes functus officio
and the primary loyalty of the appointed must be rendered to the
Constitution and the sovereign people in accordance with his
sacred oath of office.
Public officials, justices and judges in particular, must ever
realize that they have no constituency, serve no majority nor
minority but serve only the public interest as they see it in
accordance with their oath of office, guided only by the
Constitution and their own conscience and honor.” (empl
added)
The constitutionally enshrined principles in Section 1 are not mere
rhetorical flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should be liken as
working standards by all in the public service. (Biteng v. Dept. of Interior
and Local Government, 451 SCRA 520)
In addition to other qualifications, a Member of the Judiciary
must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence. (Art. VIII, sec. 7 (3), 1987 Const.)
Although every office in the government is a public trust, no
position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and
uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary. A magistrate of
law must comport himself at all times in such a manner that his
conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of
the public that looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice.
[Dia-Anonuevo v. Bareacio, 68 SCRA 81 (1975); Barja v. Barcacio, 74 SCRA 355
(976)]
Sereno culpably violated the Constitution and betrayed her trust
in issuing an administrative order creating the new Judiciary
Decentralized Office (JDO) and re-opening the Regional Court
Administration Office (RCAO) in Western Visayas in the absence of an
authorization from the Court en banc (see Justice Teresita Leonardo-De
Castro's Memorandum for Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno and. the
Associate Justices dated December 3, 2012, Notice/SC en bane Resolution dated
November 27, 2012 and SC en banc A.M. No. 12-11-9-SC); appointing Atty.
Brenda Jay C. Mendoza-Angeles as PHILJA Chief of Office for the
Philippine Mediation Center by mere memorandum which was not
submitted to the Court en banc for its approval (see Office of the Chief
Justice Memorandum Order No. 26-2016); granting travel authorities and.
certification of allowances to Atty. Ma. Lourdes E.B. Oliveros charged to
the Supreme Court funds without Court en banc approval (see Notice/SCen bane Resolution dated August 8, 2017); and sitting on the applications for
the posts of assistant court administrator (Item No. ACASC-2-1998),
assistant court administrator (Item No. ACASC-1-1998) and chief
attorney (DIR4-7-1998) and not putting in the Court’s agenda the filling
up of said posts, to the prejudice of the service. (see Certification dated
August 10, 2017 of Ana Cecilia D. Acena, Secretary, Selection and Promotion Board,
SC; see also _news.abs-cn.com/news/07/29/17/sc-justice-calls-out-serenos-
inactions-frequent-foreign-travels-of-staff, visited site on 7/30/17; see also
www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/618758/sc-justice-questions-sereno-s-
administrative-orders-appointments/; visited site on 7/29/17)
Moreover, respondent culpably violated the constitutional
provision that “appointive government officials shall not hold another
public post unless provided for by law”, for appointing Atty. Solomon
Lumba as Chief Justice Staff Head II, and for betraying her trust in
falsely claiming that the University of the Philippines Charter and the
Human Resource Manual of the Supreme Court allow secondment of
UP Law Faculty members to the Supreme Court or any other
government office. (Letter of Senior Justice Carpio to Chief Justice Maria
Lourdes P.A. Sereno dated 31 January 2013; see also news.ab-
cbn.com/focus/02/11/13/controversy-surrounds-appointment-sereno-staff, visited
site on 7/11/17)
In these ‘lights, it behooves the House of Representatives to
impeach respondent Supreme Court Chief Justice Sereno.
NATURE AND BASIS OF COMPLAINT
This is a verified complaint for the impeachment of respondent
Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, upon
the grounds mentioned below. This complaint is filed pursuant to
Article XI, section 3(1), (2), of the Constitution, and Rule IJ, section 2, of
the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings of the House of
Representatives.
PARTIES
The parties in this complaint are:
Complainant DANTE LA. JIMENEZ, Founding
Chairman/President, Volunteers Against Crime and
Corruption (VACC) may be served with the processes of the
House of Representatives at Unit 601, 6% Floor Pacific
Corporate Centr; 131 West Avenue, Quezon City.Co-complainant ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI, President,
Vanguard of the Philippine Constitution, Inc. (VPCI) may be
served with the processes of the House of Representatives at
No. 248, 3" Street, Dolores Homesite, City of San Fernando,
Pampanga.
Respondent SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA
LOURDES P.A. SERENO (“Sereno”, for brevity) may be
served with summons and other processes of the House of
Representatives at the Supreme Court, Padre Faura Street,
Manila.
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
The facts may be stated, thus:
“In late December 2012, Supreme Court Associate Justice Teresita
Leonardo-Castro issued a memorandum to the court en bane seeking
the recall of CJ Sereno's Administrative Order No. 175 creating the
new Judiciary Decentralized Office (JDO). According to her, the
Resolution in’A.M. No. 12-11-9-SC supposedly adopted by the court en
banc on November 27, 2012, to her recollection, “does not reflect the
Court’s deliberation and the consensus of the Justices opposing the re-
opening RCAO-7” and that an order solely from the Chief Justice
“cannot deprive the high court of its constitutional duty to exercise
administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel and the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of its statutory duty under
Presidential Decree 828 to assist the Supreme Court in the exercise of
said power of administrative supervision.” (see _ news.abs-
cbn.com/foeus/02/11/13/controversy-surrounds-appointment-sereno-stafi;,
visited on 7/11/2017)
Justice De Castro explained that that the consensus of the Justices was
to “oppose the re-opening of the RCAO-7 when the said administrative
‘matter was taken up on November 27, 2012” because there is yet no
pilot testing or study on the scope of powers of the OCA which will be
transferred to RCAO. (see
‘http://malaya.com.ph/index.ph/news/nation/24556-its-official-sereno-
rebutfed-by-peers; visited on_——7/11/2017; see
newsinfo.inquirer.net/426487/de-castro-denies-rift-with-sereno; visited on
7/30/17)
In a resolution, the Supreme Court ordered the creation instead of a
needs assessment committee to determine the need to decentralize the
functions of the Supreme Court in support of its power of
administrative supervision over lower courts.
Chief Justice Sereno also came under fire from Senior Justice Antonio
Carpio, the Second Division chairperson, for claiming that the
University of the Philippines Charter and the and Human Resource
Manual of the Supreme Court allow secondment of UP Law Faculty
members to the Supreme Court or any other government office.
Justice Carpio, who had earlier signed Atty. Solomon Lumba’s
appointment, withdrew his signature, stating that: “As I have no wish
to intentionally violate a mandatory provision of the Constitution that
s1am sworn to uphold, I have no choice but to now withdraw my
signature in the appointment of Atty. Lumba as Chief Justice Staff
Head IL. This constitutional requirement is reiterated in Section 54
(3), Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987. I do not believe that
that Atty. Lumba’s appointment as Chief Justice Staff Head II
complies with this constitutional requirement.” (see news.abs-
cbn.com/focus/02/11/13/controversy-surrounds-appointment-sereno-st
visited on 7/11/2017)
On July 10, 2017, Justice De Castro circulated a memorandum to the
1§-man court calling for a review of Chief Justice Sereno’s
administrative orders which were issued without the approval of the
Court en bane.
She took issue with the appointment of Atty. Brenda Jay C. Mendoza-
‘Angeles in June 2016 as chief of the Philippine Mediation Center
Office under the Philippine Judicial Academy.
Justice De Castro said Mendoza’s appointment was approved by CJ
Sereno and two other senior justices through a memorandum that was
not referred to the court for its consideration.
“Please note that the memorandum does not mention the name of the
applicant to the position recommended by the Philippine Judicial
Academy. No Philja board resolution recommending Atty. Mendoza as
PMC chief was submitted to the Court for action unlike in the
appointment of PMC chief [Geraldine] Econg. Hence, Administrative
Order No. 33-2008 was not followed in the appointment of Atty.
Mendoza,” De Castro said.
She also slammed Chief Justice Sereno for granting to members of her
staff travel allowances for foreign travel “without the requisite Court
en bane approval, which every justice has to secure to be authorized to
travel abroad on official business.”
Specifically, Justice De Castro noted “the frequent foreign travels” of
Sereno’s staff, Atty. Maria Lourdes Oliveros, “purportedly with
funding support for ‘airfare, accommodation and other related travel
expenses’ from the host or organizers of the travel as approved by the
Chief Justice and two Division chairpersons.
“However, the Chief Justice granted said OCJ staff foreign travel
allowances charged to the Supreme Court funds without Court
approval. The same is true with the foreign travel of the other staff of
the OCJ,” De Castro said.
“The Court has not delegated its power to approve authority to travel
abroad on ‘official business’ of court officials and personnel which
entitles them to their salaries, per diems and allowances as
distinguished from ‘official time’, which entitles those concerned only
to their salaries for the duration of the authorized travel abroad,” the
memorandum stated.
Justice De Castro also expressed concern about the delays in filling up
Key positions in the judiciary.
She said the posts of assistant court administrator (Item No. ACASC-
2-1998), assistant court administrator (ACASC-1-1998), and chief
attorney have been vacant for several years.
6De Castro said then Associate Justice Jose Perez raised the issue about
the vacancies prior to his retirement in December 2016 but his
“request remained unheeded by the Chief Justice even up to now.” (see
www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/618758/sc-justice-questions-
sereno-s-administrative-orders-appointments/; visited site on 7/29/17; see
also news.abs-cn.com/news/07/20/17/sc-justice-calls-out-serenos-
inactions-frequent-foreign-travels-of-staff; visited site on 7/30/17)
Certified copies of Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro’s
Memorandum for Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno and the
Associate Justice dated December 3, 2012, Notice/Supreme Court En
Banc Resolution dated November 27, 2012 in A.M. No. 12-11-9-SC (Re:
Reopening of the Regional Court Administration Office [RCAO] in
Region 7), Senior Justice Antonio Carpio’s Letter to Chief Justice Maria
Lourdes P.A. Sereno dated January 31, 2013 (Re: Appointment of Atty.
Solomon Lumba), Appointments to Positions in the Office of the Chief
Justice dated September 24, 2012, Office of the Chief Justice, Supreme
Court, Memorandum Order No. 26-2016 (Re: Appointing the Philippine
Judicial Academy (PHILJA) Chief of Office for the Philippine Mediation
Center dated June 28, 2016), SC en banc A.M. No. 12-11-9-SC (Re:
Creating a Needs Assessment Committee to Study the Necessity of
Decentralizing the Functions in Support of the Supreme Court's Power
of Administrative Supervision over Lower Courts), Notice/Supreme
Court En Banc Resolution dated July 7, 2015 in A.M. No. 15-07-01-SC-
PHILJA (Re: Appointment of Judge Geraldine Faith A. Econg as Chief
of Office for the Philippine Mediation Center for a Period of Two [2]
Years), etc.), Certification of Ana Cecilia A. Acena, Secretary, Selection
and Promotion Board, Supreme Court and Supreme Court En Banc
Resolution dated August 8, 2017 in A.M. No. 17-08-03-SC (Re: Letter
dated August 4, 2017 to the Supreme Court En Banc from Dante LA.
Jimenez, President, Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption [VACC]
and Atty. Eligio’ P. Mallari, President, Vanguard of the Philippine
Constitution, Inc, [VPCI]) and Letter dated August 10, 2017 of Atty.
Felipa B. Anama, Clerk of Court, Supreme Court En Bane, are hereto
attached as ANNEXES “A” to “J”, inclusive, to form part hereof.
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT
This verified complaint for the impeachment of respondent Maria
Lourdes P.A. Sereno as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is anchored
on the following grounds, to wit:
L
RESPONDENT SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA
LOURDES SERENO CULPABLY VIOLATED THE
CONSTITUTION FOR ISSUING AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
CREATING THE NEW JUDICIARY DECENTRALIZED OFFICE
(JDO) AND REOPENING THE REGIONAL COURT
ADMINISTRATION OFFICE (RCAO) IN REGION 7 IN THEABSENCE OF AN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE COURT EN
BANC.
8
RESPONDENT SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA
LOURDES SERENO CULPABLY VIOLATED THE
CONSTUTIONAL PROVISION THAT APPOINTIVE
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SHALL NOT HOLD ANOTHER
PUBLIC POST UNLESS PROVIDED FOR BY LAW, FOR
APPOINTING ATTY. SOLOMON LUMBA AS CHIEF JUSTICE
STAFF HEAD IL.
I.
RESPONDENT SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA
LOURDES SERENO BETRAYED HER TRUST FOR FALSELY
CLAIMING THAT (THE UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES
CHARTER AND HUMAN RESOURCE MANUAL OF THE
SUPREME COURT ALLOW SECONDMENT OF U.P. LAW
FACULTY MEMBERS TO THE SUPREME COURT OR ANY
OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICE IN CONNECTION WITH THE
APPOINTMENT OF ATTY. SOLOMON LUMBA AS CHIEF
JUSTICE STAFF HEAD 2.
Iv.
RESPONDENT SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA
LOURDES SERENO CULPABLY VIOLATED THE
CONSTITUTION FOR APPOINTING ATTY. BRENDA JAY C.
MENDOZA-ANGELES AS PHILJA CHIEF OF OFFICE FOR THE
PHILIPPINE MEDIATION CENTER BY MERE MEMORANDUM
WHICH WAS NOT REFERRED TO THE COURT EN BANC FOR
ITS APPROVAL.
Vv.
RESPONDENT SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA
LOURDES SERENO CULPABLY VIOLATED THE
CONSTITUTION FOR GRANTING TO ATTY. MA. LOURDES
E.B, OLIVEROS, CHIEF JUSTICE STAFF HEAD I, TRAVEL
AUTHORITIES AND CERTIFICATION OF ALLOWANCES
WITHOUT COURT EN BANC APPROVAL.
VI.
RESPONDENT SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA
LOURDES SERENO BETRAYED HER TRUST THROUGH
TNEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE OF DUTY, FOR SITTING ON
8THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE POSTS OF ASSISTANT COURT
ADMINISTRATOR (ITEM NO. ACASC-2-1998), ASSISTANT
COURT ADMINISTRATOR (ITEM NO. ACASC-1-1998) AND
CHIEF ATTORNEY (DIR4-7-1998) AND FOR NOT PUTTING IN
THE COURT'S AGENDA THE FILLING UP OF SAID POSTS, TO
THE PREJUDICE OF THE SERVICE.
DISCUSSION
RESPONDENT SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE
MARIA LOURDES SERENO CULPABLY VIOLATED
THE CONSTITUTION FOR ISSUING AN ADMINIS-
TRATIVE ORDER CREATING THE NEW JUDICIARY
DECENTRALIZED OFFICE (JDO) AND DESIGNATING
THE HEAD FOR THE SAID OFFICE IN THE
SEVENTH JUDICIAL REGION AND FOR RE-
OPENING THE REGIONAL COURT ADMINISTRA-
TION OFFICE (RCAO-7) IN THE ABSENCE OF AN
AUTHORIZATION FROM THE COURT EN BANC
Sereno culpably violated the Constitution for issuing
Administrative Order 175-2012 creating the new Judiciary
Decentralized Office (JDO) and designating the head for the said office
in the Seventh Judicial Region and for reopening the Regional Court
Administration Office (RCAO-7) in the absence of an authorization from
the Court en banc.
‘This finds abundant support in Justice Teresita Leonardo-De
Castro’s Memorandum for Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno and
the Associate Justices (dated December 3, 2012) seeking the
Recall/Amendment of the Resolution dated November 27, 2012 issued
by the Chief Justice in order to Conform to the Deliberation of the Court
en banc on the said Date in Administrative Matter No. 12-11-9-SC,
wherein it stated: the Chief Justice has no authority to create
the Judiciary Decentralized Office which under the AO shall
take full responsibility over the Regional Court
Administration Office in Region 7, which was to be reopened
without Court en banc approval on November 27, 2012; the
‘AO of the Chief Justice cannot deprive: (1) the Court en bane
of its constitutional duty to exercise administrative
supervision over all courts and their personnel and (2) the
Office of the Court Administrator of its statutory duty under
Presidential Decree No 828, as amended to assit the Supreme
Court in the exercise of said power of administrative
supervision, which is the case under the AO where an
official, outside of the OCA was designated to take charge of
9RCAO-7, answerable only to the Chief Justice without any
guideline set by Court en banc; the RCAO-7 which was
intended only to be a “pilot” project cannot be reopened or
revived on a permanent basis even on a limited scale without
first undertaking a study, particularly, among many other
concerns, why it failed when it was first organized, resulting
in black armband rally against RCAO-7 organized by Judges
and Court personnel in the Region, led by Program
Management Office (PMO) head then RTC Judge Geraldine
Faith Econg; the RCAO-7 cannot be re-opened without
showing to the Court the content/scope of the. functions to be
transferred from the Office of the Court Administrator to
RCAO-7 and the process of decentralization or devolution of
functions and the justification for the reopening; the PMO
head cannot be appointed in-charge of the RCAO-7 since it is
not part of her duty to assist in the administrative
supervision of lower courts. A best, a Justice opined, she
may take part in the conduct of a study for a period of say
two months to determine of whether or not to reopen RCAO-
7; the Court en banc, which is constitutionally vested with
the administrative supervision of all courts has the
authority to decide on the reopening of RCAO-7 and it must
be assisted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA);
Administrative Order No. 175-2012 dated November 9, 2012
which was reiterated in Administrative Order No 185-2-012
dated November 27, 2012, has transgressed the said
constitutional authority of the Court en banc and the
statutory authority of the OCA.
“In view of the foregoing, the Court en banc did not reach a
decision to reopen RCAO-7, instead it accepted the undertaking of the
Chief Justice to amend AO No. 175-2012 to address the foregoing
adverse observations of the Justices during the deliberation on
November 27, 2012. The Resolution dated November 27, 2012 ratifying
the action of the Chief Justice reviving RCAO-7 which she did through
‘Administrative Order No. 175-2012 and appointing the PMO head as
Officer-in-Charge of RCAO-7 must be recalled or amended to faithfully
reflect the deliberation of the Court en banc, particularly the objections
raised against said AO.” (Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro's Memorandum
for Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno and the Associate Justices (dated
December 3, 2012) seeking the Recall/Amendment of the Resolution dated
November 27, 2012 issued by the Chief Justice in order to Conform to the
10Deliberation of the Court en banc on the said Date in Administrative Matter No. 12-
11-9-SC at p. 3)
Evidently, Sereno has transgressed Art. VIII, sec. 6 of the 1987
Constitution, viz:
“cx. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over
all courts and the personnel thereof.” (emphasis added)
It bears emphasis that the Constitution vests the power of
administrative supervision over lower courts and the personnel thereof
in the Supreme Court; and such power is exercised by the members of
the Court as a collegial body. And hence, Sereno’s action amounted to a
culpable violation of the fundamental law.
The Supreme Court exercises administrative supervision over all
courts from the Court of Appeals down to the lowest court and the
personnel thereof. [De Leon, et al., Philippine Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, 2012
Ed, at p. 66)
RESPONDENT SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE
MARIA LOURDES SERENO CULPABLY VIOLATED
THE CONSTUTIONAL PROVISION THAT
APPOINTIVE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SHALL
NOT HOLD ANOTHER PUBLIC POST UNLESS
PROVIDED FOR BY LAW, FOR APPOINTING ATTY.
SOLOMON LUMBA AS CHIEF JUSTICE STAFF HEAD 2
Sereno culpably violated Art. IX-B, sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution
in appointing Atty. Solomon Lumba as Judicial Staff Head 11 which
states that:
“Sec. 7. No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or
designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure.
‘Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions
of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or
employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or
jnstrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.” (emphasis added)
The second paragraph deals with appointive officers. They may
not “hold any other office or employment in the Government or any
other subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations of their subsidiaries”.
[Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary,
2009 Ed., at p. 1066]
aThe rule aims to remedy the problem of appointive officials
holding multiple positions which prevent them from devoting full time
to their principal functions and result in double or multiple
compensation. (De Leon, et al. Philippine Constitutional Law, Vol. 2, 2012 Ed., at
Pp. 752)
Sec. 7 applies to all officials other than those mentioned in Art.
VIL, sec. 13 (par. 1 thereof). Public office is not only a public trust (Art.
XI, sec. 1); it is a full-time job.
In any case, the appointive official is not entitled to receive
additional double or indirect compensation unless specifically
authorized by law. (sec. 8) [De Leon, et al., Philippine Constitutional Law, Vol.
2, 2012 Ed., at pp. 752-753]
In withdrawing his signature in the appointment of Atty. Lumba,
Senior Justice Antonio Carpio stated in his Letter to the Chief Justice
that:
“when the appointment paper was submitted for my signature, there
was no indication whatsoever that Atty. Lumba was to be seconded from the
Up. College of Law. Thus, I assumed that Atty. Lumba was not holding any
other public office.
Subsequently, however, I learned that Atty. Lumba had a prior and
still subsisting permanent appointment to the U.P. Law Faculty. In fact, Atty.
Lamba’s appointment as Chief Justice Staff Head 2 was to be seconded from
the U.P. College of Law.
During the En Bane meeting last 29 January 2033, the validity of Atty.
Lumba's appointment was raised and you stated that the Charter of the
University of the Philippines, as well as the Human Resource Manual of the
Supreme Court, allowed secondments.
J read and re-read the University of the Philippines Charter of 2008,
as well.as the University of the Philippines Charter of 1908, as amended, and
aed not find any provision allowing secondment of U.P. Law Faculty
members to the Supreme Court or any other government office. T also read
and re-read our Human Resource Manual, and could only find a definition of
secondment (apparently lifted from Civil Service rules), but nothing else. I
seo"Shecked other laws, and could only find statutory authority for the
secondment of Science & Technology government personnel to the private
sector.
[At isoue here is whether Atty. Lumba’s secondment to the Supremé
Court complies with the constitutional requirement in Section 7, “Article IX-B
of the 1987 Constitution, which states:
Section 7. xox Unless otherwise provided by law or by the
primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any
Prher office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or
12instrumentality thereof, , including government-owned and controlled
corporations or subsidiaries.
‘This constitutional requirement is reiterated in Section 54(3), Book V of the
‘Administrative Code of 1987. I do not believe that Atty. Lumba’s appointment as
Chief Justice Staff Head 2 complies with this constitutional requirement.
‘As I have no wish to intentionally violate a mandatory provision of the
Constitution that I am sworn to uphold, I have no choice but to now withdraw my
signature in the appointment of Atty. Lamba as Chief Justice Staff Head 2.”
Sereno knew at the time she signed the appointment that Atty.
Lumba was still a U.P. Law Faculty member and that he was to
seconded from U.P. College of Law; otherwise, she would not have
argued in the deliberation that the Charter of the University of the
Philippines, as well as the Human Resource Manual of the Supreme
Court allowed secondments.
Hence, there is no peradventure of doubt that she transgressed
‘Art. IX-B, sec. 7 of 1987 Constitution, thereby committing an
impeachable offense.
Executive Order No. 284 (July 25, 1987) which authorizes the
holding of other government offices or positions by members of the
Cabinet, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, and other appointive
officials of the Executive Department under certain conditions has been
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Although Section 7
contains a blanket prohibition against the holding of dual or multiple
positions, it applies to appointive officials in general. [Civil Liberties Union
y. The Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991)]
No less than the Supreme Court had ruled that:
“People who run the judiciary, particularly justices and judges, must
not only be proficient in both the substantive and procedural aspects of the
law, but more importantly, they must possess the highest degree of integrity
and probity and an unquestionable moral uprightness both in their public
and private lives.”
Although every office in the government service is a public trust,
no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and
uprightness than a seat in the Judiciary. High ethical principles and a
sense of propriety should be maintained, without which the faith of the
people in the Judiciary so indispensable in an orderly society cannot be
preserved. (cited in the Verified Complaint of Reps. Niel C. Tupas, Jr. et al. in
Case No. 002-2011)
RESPONDENT SUPREME COURT CHIEF
JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES SERENO
BETRAYED HER TRUST FOR FALSELY
CLAIMING THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF
PHILIPPINES CHARTER AND THE HUMAN
13RESOURCE MANUAL OF THE SUPREME
COURT ALLOW SECONDMENT OF U.P.
LAW FACULTY MEMBERS TO THE
SUPREME COURT OR ANY OTHER GOVERN-
MENT OFFICE IN CONNECTION WITH
THE APPOINTMENT OF ATTY. SOLOMON
LUMBA AS CHIEF JUSTICE STAFF HEAD IT
Sereno also betrayed her trust when she falsely claimed that the
University of the Philippines Charter and the Human Resource Manual
of the Supreme Court allow secondment of U.P. Faculty membes to the
Supreme Court or any other government office in connection with the
appointment of Atty. Solomon Lumba as Chief Justice Staff Head 2.
A simple reading of the U.P. Charter and the Human Resource
Manual of the Supreme Court will readily confirm the falsity of Sereno’s
assertion and the accuracy of Senior Justice Carpio’s counter-argument.
The Supreme Court had the occasion to pronounce that:
“People who run the judiciary, particularly justices and judges, must
not only be proficient in both the substantive and procedural aspects of the
law, but more importantly, they must possess the highest degree of integrity
and probity and an unquestionable moral uprightness both in their public
and private lives.”
Irrefutably, Sereno has failed to meet this exacting standard and
demanded of members of the Judiciary.
‘As her action tended to put her office into disrepute, the House of
Representatives should exact accountability from her through the
process of impeachment.
RESPONDENT SUPREME COURT CHIEF
JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES SERENO
CULPABLY VIOLATED THE CONSTITU-
TION FOR APPOINTING ATTY. BRENDA
JAY C. MENDOZA-ANGELES AS PHILJA
CHIEF OF OFFICE FOR THE PHILIPPINE
MEDIATION CENTER BY MERE MEMO-
RANDUM WHICH WAS NOT REFERRED
TO THE COURT EN BANC FOR ITS APPROVAL
14The Constitution vests the power to appoint all officials and
employees of the Judiciary in accordance with Civil Service Law in the
Supreme Court. (see Art. VIIL, sec. 5 (6), 1987 Constitution).
In the case of Atty. Brenda Jay C. Mendoza-Angeles, Sereno
appointed her as PHILJA chief of office for the Philippine Mediation
Center by mere memorandum which was not referred to the Court en
bane for its approval.
There was even no PHILJA BOT resolution showing that Atty.
Mendoza-Angeles was recommended for the said post; whereas, in the
case of Judge Geraldine Faith A. Econg, now Sandiganbayan Justice,
PHILJA recommended her to the position (as evidenced by PHILJA
BOT Resolution No. 15-11 dated May 25, 2015) before her the Court en
banc approved her appointment. (see ANNEX “G”)
Doubtless, Sereno culpably violated the fundamental law in
appointing Atty. Mendoza-Angeles.
The Philippine Supreme Court is that court composed of one chief
justice and fourteen associate justices [see Art. VII, secs. 1, 4(1), 1987
Constitution].
In Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Co. [57 Phil. 600
(a932)], the high court held, among others, that:
“The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands represents one of the
three divisions of power in our government. It is judicial power and judicial
power only which is exercised by the Supreme Court. Just as the Supreme
Court, as the guardian of constitutional rights, should not sanction
usurpations by any other department of the government, so should it as
strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the powers expressly or by
implication conferred on it by the Organic Act . xxxx”
RESPONDENT SUPREME COURT CHIEF
JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES SERENO
CULPABLY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION
FOR GRANTING TO ATTY. MA. LOURDES
E.B. OLIVEROS, CHIEF JUSTICE STAFF
HEAD I, TRAVEL AUTHORITIES AND
CERTIFICATION OF ALLOWANCES
WITHOUT COURT EN BANC APPROVAL
Sereno culpably violated the Constitution for granting to Atty. Ma.
Lourdes E.B. Oliveros, Chief Justice Staff Head I, travel authorities and
certification of allowances without Court en banc approval.According to Justice Leonardo-De Castro, Sereno has been
granting to members of her staff travel authorities and certifications of
allowances “without the requisite Court en banc approval, and which
every justice has to secure to be authorized to travel abroad on official
business.”
Specifically, Justice De Castro noted “the frequent foreign travels”
of Sereno’s staff, Atty. Ma. Lourdes E.B. Oliveros, “purportedly with
funding support for ‘airfare, accommodation and other related travel
expenses’ from the host or organizers of the travel as approved by the
Chief Justice and two Division chairpersons.
However, Sereno granted said OCS staff foreign travel allowances
charged to the Supreme Court funds without Court approval.
Justice Leonardo-De Castro has pointed in her July 10, 2017
Memorandum to the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices that “the
Court has not delegated its power to approve authority to travel abroad
on ‘official business’ of court officials and personnel which entitles them.
to their salaries, per diems and allowances as distinguished from
‘official time’, which entitles those concerned only to their salaries for
the duration of the authorized travel abroad.”
The power of the Court en banc to approve such authority to
travel abroad on official business proceeds from Art. VIII, sec. 6, of the
1987 Constitution, viz:
“xxx. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over
all courts and the personnel thereof. “
In Re Almacen (GR. No. L-27664, February 18, 1970), the high court
held that:
“cxx. Consistently with the intrinsic nature of a collegiate court, the
individual members act not as such individuals but only as a duly constituted
court. Their distinct individualities are lost in the majesty of their office. So
that, ina very real sense, if there be any complainant in the case at bar, it can
only be the Court itself, not the individual members thereof — as well as the
people themselves whose rights, fortunes and properties, nay even
lives, would be placed at grave hazard should the administration
of justice be threatened by the retention in the Bar of men unit to
discharge the solemn responsibilities of membership in the legal
fraternity. (emphases added)
RESPONDENT SUPREME COURT CHIEF
JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES SERENO
BETRAYED HER TRUST THROUGH
INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE OF DUTY,
FOR SITTING ON THE APPLICATIONS
16FOR THE POSTS OF ASSISTANT COURT
ADMINISTRATOR (ITEM NO. ACASC-2-
1998), ASSISTANT COURT ADMINISTRA-
TOR (ITEM NO. ACASC-1-1998) AND CHIEF
ATTORNEY (DIR4-7-1998) AND FOR
NOT PUTTING IN THE COURT'S AGENDA
THE FILLING UP OF SAID POSTS, TO THE
GREAT PREJUDICE OF THE SERVICE
Sereno betrayed her trust through inexcusable negligence, for
sitting on the applications for the posts of assistant court administrator
(Item No. ACASC-2-1998), assistant court administrator (Item No.
ACASC-1-1998) and chief attorney (Item No. DIR$-7-1998) and for not
putting in the Court’s agenda the filling up of the said posts, to the great
prejudice of the service.
Notably, the subject posts have been vacant for a number of years.
Record shows, however, that the applications for the subject posts had
long been referred to the Office of the Chief Justice and are just
gathering dust in that office.
According to Justice Leonardo-De Castro, Justice Jose Perez
raised the issue about the vacancies prior to his retirement in December
2016, but his “request remained unheeded by the Chief Justice even up
to now.”
Inexcusable negligence is constitutive of betrayal of public trust as
evinced by the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986;
and hence, the honorable House of Representatives can take judicial
notice of the same.
The Supreme Court itself recognized that the concept of “betrayal
of public trust” has no precise definition. In the case of Francisco, Jr.
vs. House of Representatives, the Supreme Court held that the
definition of “betrayal of public trust” is a non-justiciable political
question which is beyond the scope of is judicial power under the
Constitution. The Court held:
“although Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution enumerates six
grounds for impeachment, two of these, namely, other high crimes and
Betrayal of public trust, elude a precise definition. In fact, an examination of
the records of the 19876 Constitutional Commission shows that the framers
could find nobetter way to approximate the boundaries of betrayal of public
trust and other high crimes than by alluding to both positive and negative
examples of both, without arriving at their clear cut definition or even a
standard therefor. Clearly, the issue calls upon this court to decide a non-
justiciable political question which is beyond the scope of its judicial power
‘under Sec. 1, Article VIII.”
v7‘The people have lost faith and trust in Sereno. They have lost faith
and trust in her for the series of unilateral and unauthorized actions, as
well as her gross neglect of duty, which tended to put the office into
disrepute apart from constituting culpable violations of the
Constitution.
Her countermanding and incessant pattern of disregarding the
authority of the Court en banc should not be countenanced; otherwise,
the Article on Public Accountability in the Constitution will be for
naught.
In these lights, it behooves the House of Representatives to
impeach Sereno as Supreme Court chief justice.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, it is
respectfully prayed of the honorable House of Representatives that
respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno be impeached as Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court for culpable violations of the Constitution and
betrayal of public trust.
Quezon City, August 15, 2017.
Roofn 412 FEMII Building Annex
Andres Soriano, Jr. Avenue, Intramuros, Manila 1002
ROA No. 42073; Signed Roll on May 9, 1997
IBP No. 755876; Issued on Oct. 10, 2016 (for 2017)
PTR No. 1407297; Issued on Jan. 10, 2017;
Issued at Zamboanga City
18MCLE No. V-0008706; Issued on June 24, 2015
Cel. No. 09274788538
attymanuelito_luna@yahoo.com
VERIFICATION
We, DANTE LA. JIMENEZ and ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI,
under oath state:
That we are the complainants in the above-entitled verified
complaint for impeachment; that we have caused the safd cpinplaint to
be prepared and have read the contents thereof; and that jHfe allegations
therein are true of our own knowledge and belief on he basis of our
reading and appreciation of documents and othey“Tecords pertinent
thereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hef our hands this
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3g day of
2017, at Quezon City, Metro Manila.ANNEX 'A"
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Momila
ow rue cxnmoees oF
Trresl of. LeonardoDe Castro
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno
and the Associate Justices
J. Leonardo-de Castro
Justice Teresi
Recall / Amendinent of the Resolution dated November 27, 2012 issued by C
the Chief Justice (CJ) In order to Conform to the Deliberation of the Court
en banc on the said Date in Administrative Matter No. 12-11-9-SC
December 3, 2012
I regret that I have to write this Memorandum in connection with Resolution in A.M. No.
2-11-9-SC supposedly adopted by the Court en banc on November 27, 2012, a copy of which I
ceived this morning. With due respect to the Chief Justice, to my recollection, the Resolution
joes not reflect the Court’s deliberation and the consensus of, the Justices (no dissent was
p on November 27, 2012. as
: Jn fact, at the end of the deliberation, after hearing the vehement objections of the =
, Stices to her Administrative Order (AO) No.175-2012, DESIGNATING THE HEAD FOR
3 THE JUDICIARY DECENTRALIZED OFFICE (JDO) IN THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL
REGION, if may quote the Chief Justice; she said:
a ya
> {will amend my administrative order”.
The objections raised during the deliberations regarding the said Administrative Order
which were not rebutted or disputed were:
aay up orted p,
CERTIFIED TRUE
etl a sft
Pa i
FELIPA B. ANAMA#) 22555"
CLERK OF COURT, EN BANC
‘SUPREME COURT(1) The Chief Justice has no authority to create the Judiciary
Decentralized Office which under the AO. shall take full
responsibility over the Regional Court Administration Office in
Region 7, which was to be reopened without Court en banc
approval on November 27, 2012;
(2) The AO of the Chief Justice cannot deprive: (1) the Coit en
banc of ‘its constitutional duty to exercise administrative
supervision. over all courts and their personnel and (2) the
Office of the- Court Administrator of its statutory: duty under
Presidential Dectee No. 828, as amended to assist the Supreme
Court in the exercise of said power of administrative
supervision, which is the case under the AO where an official,
outside of OCA was designated to take charge of RCAO-7,
answerable only to the Chief Justice without any guideline set
by the Court en banc;
(G) The RCAO-7 which was intended only to be a “pilot” project
cannot be reopened or revived on a permanent basis éven on a
limited scale without first undertaking a study, particularly,
among many other concerns, why it failed when it was first
organized, resulting in black armband rally-against RCAO-7
organized by Judges and Court personnel in the Region, led by
Program Management Office (PMO) head then RTC Judge
Geraldine Faith Bcong;
(4) The RCAO-7 cannot be reopened without showing to the Court
the content/scope of the farictions to be transferred from the
Office of the Court Administrator to RCAO-7 and the process
of decentralization or devolution of functions and the
justification for the reopening:
(5) The PMO head cannot be appointed in-charge of the RCAO-7 r
since it is not part of her duty to assist in the administrative
supervision of lower courts. At best, a Justice-opined, she may
take part in the conduct a study. for a peridd of say two months
to determine of whether or not to reopen RCAO-7;
(6 The Court en bang which is constitutionally vested with the
administrative ape ision of all courts has the authority to
decide on the reopening of RCAO-7 and it must be assisted by
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA);
(7) Administrative Order No. 175-2012 dated November 9, 2012,
Wwhich was reiterated in Administrative Order No. 185-2012
IFIED TRUE COlwed November 27, 2012, has transgressed the | saidconstitutional authority of the Court en banc and the statutory
authority of OCA.
In view of the foregoing, the Court en bane did not.reach a decision to reopen RCAO-7,
12 jpstead it accepted the undertaking of the Chief Justice to amend AO No. 175-2012 to address
“ihe foregoing adverse observations of the Justices during the deliberation on November 27, 2012.
1¢ Resolution dated November 27, 2012 ratifying the action of the Chief Justice reviving
{CAO-7 which she did through Administrative Order No. 175-2012 and appointing the PMO
head as Officer-in-Charge of RCAO-7 nmst be recalled or: amended to faithfully reflect the
liberation of the Court en banc, particularly the objections raised against said AO.
Buti bevechs de Gil
Respectfully submitted.
eee ee
Tro Be
BOEEO
'sRepublic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
EN BANC
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames: .
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution
dated NOVEMBER 27, 2012, which reads as follows:
“A.M. No. 12-11-9-SC (Re: Reopening of the Regional Court
Administration Office [RCAO] in Region 7).- The Court Resolved to
(a) RATIFY the action of Chief Justice Maria
Lourdes P. A. Sereno to revive the Regional Court
Administration Office in Region 7, with Phase I on: “(a)
procurement; (b) approval of leave; and (c) payroll
administration; and
(b) APPOINT Judge Geraldine—Faith A. Econg,
Deputy Clerk of Court and Judicial Reform Program
Administrator, as Officer-in-Charge of RCAO-Region 7,
effective immediately and for a period of two (2) months.”
Brion, J., on leave. Reyes and Perlas-Bernabe, J.J., qn official
leave. (adv62)
Very truly yours,
ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Courteg,
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
tee ANAMA
CLERK OF COURT,E ano
‘SUPREME COUs..
G2Resolution
Honorable Maria Lourdes P.’A. Sereno (x)
Chief Justice
‘Supreme Court
Court Administrator
Hon, Jose Midas P. Marquez (x)
Deputy Court Administrators
Hon, Raul B. Villanueva (x)
Hon. Antonio M. Eugenio, Jt. )
Assistant Court Administrators
Hon. Thelma C. Bahia (x)
Hon. Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Detorino (x)
Supreme Court
A.M.No, 12-11-9-8C
November 27, 2012
Atty. Cardaid A. Pabelio (x)
Chief, Office of Administrative Services
Atty. Lilan Baribal-Co (x)
Chief, Financial Management Office
Atty. Marina B. Ching ()
‘Chiet, Court Management Office
Atty. Wilhelmine D. Geronga (x)
Chief, Legal Ofice
OCA, Supreme Court
iudge Geraldine Faith A. Eoong (x)
Deputy Clerk of Court and
:
Very truly yours,
ee or ow
: : ANTONIO T. CARP!
Copy-Fuinished: 5 : :
All: Associate justices:
““\at'iggue-here is whether Atty. Lumba's secondment to the Supreme Court.”
complies with the constitutional requirement in Section.7, Article IX-B of the 1987:A- 0015
fr a :
malegt eeu se ANNEX Xp"
SUPRENE COURT
J OFFICE OF JUSTICE sii
fal
i
Lereme Jf)
LH
YEP HUPPINES
TOMIOT.CARBIO|
Mania Lourdes P, LL, Sereno az
24 September 2012
APPOINTMENTS TO POSITIONS
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE
In the interest of the service, the following personnel are hereby
recommended for appointment to positions indicated herein in the Office of
the Chief Justice:
Atty. Ma. Lourdes Balbin Oliveros. Chief Justice Staff Head 1
Effective October 1, 2012
Atty. Solomon Lumba Chief Justice Staff Head 2
Effective November 5, 2012
Atty. Vicente Dante P. Adan Judicial StaffHead - *
Effective October 1, 2012
Maria Cresencia D. Sunga Executive Assistant V -
Effective October 1, 2012
a Drscy Fle
; MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
ANTONIO T. CARPIO PRESBITERGJ. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice ‘and Chairperson Associate Jystice and Chairperson
‘Second Division
Date: sep 2.4 2017
(Pet AM. No, 99-12-08-SC)or eS SUSE HE Rts
rAnrsieie.s
i JUN 28 2016
GOL u
Re BY I <
. MN
Ditice of the Chict Fustice ANNEX E
Supreme Court
Manila
MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. _ 26-2016
APPOINTING THE
PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY (PHILJA)
CHIEF OF OFFICE FOR THE PHILIPPINE MEDIATION CENTER
WHEREAS, the position of PHILJA Chief of Office for the Philippine Mediation
Center is vacant; the notice of vacancy and the deadline for the filing of the applications for
appointment thereto were duly published; and the matrix (showing the applicants’ present
positions with salary grades, bighest educational attainment, performance rating, relevant
experiences, trainings and seminars, dates of entrance to the Supreme Court, and dates of last
promotion) prepared by the Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer Atty.
Eden T. Candelaria were submitted to the Chief Justice
WHEREAS, evaluations have been made based on the criteria for the selection of the
most qualified applicants;
WHERRAS, the Philippine Judicial Academy has submitled its recommended
applicant to the position, for a term of two (2) years, without prejudice to subsequent
reappointment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, for and in behalf of the Supreme Court, by
virtue of and pursuant to the power and authority vested in the revised Resolution in A.M.
No. 99-12-08-SC, do hereby appoint ATTY. BRENDA JAY A, MENDOZA as PHILJA
Chief of Office for the Philippine Mediation Center
‘This appointment shall take effect on the 28tRiay of June 2016.
Issued this 28H day of June2016.
rere
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO fy
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPI
Chairperson, Second Division
Office of Administrative ServicesRepublic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
HMlanila
EN BANC
A.M. No. 12-11-9-SC
CREATING A NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE TO STUDY
THE NECESSITY. OF DECENTRALIZING THE FUNCTIONS IN
SUPPORT OF THE SUPREME COURT’S POWER OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER COURTS
WHEREAS, on 27 November 2012 and on 11 December 2012, the
Supreme Court En Bane, considering the operational inactivity of the pilot
project under A.M. No. 06-11-09-SC, determined that there is a need to
further study the decentralization of functions relative to the Supreme
Court’s power of administrative supervision over lower courts;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court hereby resolves to create a
Decentralization Needs Assessment Committee to study and determine the
necessity of decentralizing administrative functions appurtenant to the
exercise of the Supreme Court’s power of supervision over lower courts; the
functions to be devolved; the implementation of the devolution of functions;
and the efficient and effective performance of the devolved functions.
The Committee shall be composed of the following:
Chairperson i HON. JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
Members. 1. HON. JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ
Court Administrator
2. HON. RAUL B. VILLANUEVA
Deputy Court Administrator
3. HON. JENNY LIND A. DELORINO
Deputy Court Administrator
4, HON. THELMA C. BAHIA
Assistant Court Administrator
5, ATTY. LILIAN BARRIBAL-CO
Chief, Financial Management Office
Office of the Court Administrator
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
FELIPA B!ANAMA
CLERK OF COURT, EN:
‘SUPREME COURT
ANNEX'F"6. ATTY. CARIDAD A. PABELLO
Chief, Office of Administrative Services
Office of the Court Administrator
7. ATTY. REGINA — ADORACION
FILOMENA M. IGNACIO
Chief, Office on Halls of Justice
Office of the Court Administrator
8. JUDGE GERALDINE FAITH A.
ECONG
Judicial Reform Program Administrator
Program Management Office
‘The Committee is given a period of two (2) months within which to
submit its report and recommendation to the Supreme Court En Bane.
The Chairperson, in consultation with the members of the Committee,
shall designate the Secretary and Assistant Secretary.
‘The Chairperson, Members, Secretary and Assistant Secretary shall be
entitled to the expense allowance provided for under Administrative Circular
No. 13-99 dated 30 September 1999.
This Resolution supersedes ell prior resolutions, administrative orders
and issuances on the covered matter and shall take effect upon its
promulgation.
Promulgated this 22" day of January 2013.
“Pru OPAL
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO.
Chief Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO PRESBITERG J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Ass6ciate Justice
7 de (on official leave)
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice Associate Justice
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
EH BANG
counrMARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
JOSE CA’ L INDOZA
Assodjate Justice
ESTELA dials. serwane
Associate Justice
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
ROBERTO A’ ABAD
Associate Justice
‘Associate Justice
‘BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
VICTOR F. LEONEN
Associate Justice~ANNEX'G"
SUPREME COURT OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVIGE™
Republic of the Philippines meer
Supreme Court Han 20 a}
Siler HUE ogee 9
EN BANC a a
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc. issued a Resolution
dated SULY 7, 2015, which reads as follows:
«A.M, No. 15-07-01-SC-PHILJA (Re: Appointment of Judge
Geraldine Faith A. Eeong as the Chief of Office for the Philippine Mediation
Center fora Period of Two [2] Years). The Court Resolved to
(a) NOTE the Letter dated June 26, 2015 of
Chancellor Adolfo S. Azcuna, PHILJA, transmitting, among
others, PHILJA BOT Resolution No. 15-11 dated May 25, 2015;
and
(b) NOYE and APPROVE the aforesaid PHILJA
BOT Resolution No. 15-11, recommending the appointment of
Sudge Geraldine Faith A. Econg as the Chief of Office for the
Philippine Mediation Center for a period of two (2) years.”
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Brion, Reyes and Jardeleza, JJ., on leave.
(adv4o)
Very truly yours,
tberdngen
JELIPA G. BORLONGAN/ANAMA
Clerk of CourtSupreme Cunrt
Bewila
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the following positions in the Supreme Court are
vacant:
"Position | Item No Status
Assistant Court ACASC-2-1998 | - Former position of Hon. Jenny Lind Aldecoa-
Administrator | Delorino who was promoted as Deputy Court
Administrator effective January 10, 2013
| = Requested to be opened for filling up by the
Office of the Court Administrator on October
17, 2016
Aunouncement of vacancy was posted in the
SC Bulletin Boards on October 24, 2016 and
the applications and matrix were submitted to
the Office of the Clerk of Court En Bane on
December 14, 2016
‘Assistant Court
ACASC-1-1998
= Former position of Hon. Thelma C. Bahia who
Administrator was promoted as Deputy Court Administrator
effective May 15, 2013
Chief Attorney | DIR4-7-1998 ~ Former position of Atty. Edna E. Dino who
compulsorily retired effective October 31,
2012, and whose service was extended up to
October 31, 2013
‘Announcement of vacancy was posted in the
SC Bulletin Boards on June 15, 2016 and the
applications and matrix were submitted to the
Office of the Clerk of Coust En Bane on July
19, 2016
Issued this 10 day of August 2017 for whatever legal purposes it may
serve.
ANNA Cl fits ACENA
ecretary
Selection and Promotion Board
ANNEX"ANNEX'T"
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
EN BANC
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en bane issued a Resolution
dated AUGUST 8, 2017, which reads as follows:
“A.M. No. 17-08-03-SC (Re: Letter dated August 4, 2017 to the Supreme
Court En Banc froni Dante LA. Jimenez, President, Volunteers Against Crime
and Corruption [VACC] and Aity. Eligio P. Mallari, President, Vanguard of the
Philippine Constitution, Inc. [VPCIj).- In the Letter-Request dated August 4,
2017, Dante LA. Jimenez, President of Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption
(VACC) and Atty. Eligio P. Mallari, President of Vanguard of the Philippine
Constitution, Inc. (VPCI) are requesting from the Court certified copies of
documents relative to, and in connection with, the impeachment complaint filed by
VACC and VPCI against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (2 copy of
which is attached to the Letter-Request) with the Secretary General of the House of
Representatives on August 2, 2017.
‘The pertinent documents being requested are:
1. En Bane Resolution in A.M. No. 12-11-9-SC supposedly adopted on Nov. 27,
201
2. Subsequent En Banc Resolution recalling the afore-mentioned resolution;
3. Honorable Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno’s Memorandum on the
appointment of Atty. Solomon Lumba as Chief Justice Staff Head II;
4. Honorable Senior [Associate] Justice Antonio Carpio’s Letter on the
withdrawal of his signarure in the appointment of Atty. Solomon Lumba as
Chief Justice Staff Head 1;
5, Memorandum to the Court en bane dated December 2012, of [Hlonorable
Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro seeking the recall of [Honorable Chief
Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno’s administrative order creating the new
Judiciary Decentralized Office (DO) and re-opening the Regional Court
‘Administration Office (RCAO) in Region VII; aAM. No. 17-08-03-8C
‘August 8, 2017
Notice of Resolution
6. En Bane Resolution Creating the Needs Assessment Committee to determine
the need 10 decentralize the functions of the Supreme Court in support of its
power of administrative supervision over the lower courts;
7. Memorandum to the Court en banc dated July 10, 2017, of [HJonorable
Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro calling for a review of {HJonorable Chief
Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno’s administrative orders re “Appointment
of Atty. Brenda Jay Mendoza in June 2016 as [Chief of the Philippine
“Mediation Center under the Philippine Judicial Academy,” “Frequent Foreign
travels and grant of Allowance to Atty. Maria Lourdes Oliveros and other
OCI staéf purportedly with funding support for airfare, accommodation and
other related travel expenses ftom the host organizers of the travel as
approved by the Chief Justice and two Division [C]hairpersons” and “Delays
in filling up the posts of Supreme Court [DJeputy [Clerk of [Clourt, [C]hiet
[A]ttorney and two positions for [Alssistant [Court [A]dministrator”, which
were supposedly issued by without the approval of the Court en banc. iM
Considering that the documents being requested from Item No. 1 up to Item
No. 6 are public documents in the custody of the Court, the requesting party is
granted access and should be given certified copies of the same.
‘As regards Item No. 7, tie requesting party should, likewise, be given:
certified copies of the respective appointments of Atty. Geraldine Faith A. Econg
(now Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan) and Atty. Brenda Jay C. Mendoza-
‘Angeles as Chief of Office, Philippine Mediation Center; certified copies of
relevant Travel Authorities and certification of Allowances received from the
Court by Atty. Maria Lourdes E. B. Oliveros by virtue of such Travel Authorities;
and certification of the respective dates when the positions of Deputy Clerk of
Court, Chief Attorney, and two (2) Assistant Court Administrators became vacant.
However, with respect to the Memorandum dated July 10, 2017 of Hon.
Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, the request for a copy thereof is denied,
since the matters raised therein are still pending determination by the Court.
Neveitheless, this is without prejudice to a subsequent request from the requesting
party of certified copies of the documents subject matter of the said Memorandum,
WHEREFORE, the request is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Upon the
payment of the required fees, the Clerk of Court En Banc is DIRECTED to
FURNISH the requesting party certified copies of the following documents:
1. En Banc Resolution in AM. No. 12-11-9-SC dated November 27, 2012;
2. Subsequent En Banc Resolution recalling A.M. No. 12-11-9-SC;
“Letter Request, rallo, pp. 1-2. ye‘Notice of Resolution -3- AM.No. 17-08-03-SC
August 8, 2017
3. Memorandum of Hon. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno on the
appointment of Atty. Solomon Lumba as Chief Justice Staff Head IT;
4, Letter of Hon. Justice Antonio T. Carpio on the withdrawal of his
signature in the appointment of Atty. Solomon Lumba as Chief Justice
Staff Head 1;
5. Memorandum of Hon. Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro to the
Court En Banc dated December 2012, seeking to recall the
Administrative Order of Hon. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno
creating the new Judiciary Decentralized Office (DO) and re-opening
the Regional Court Administration Office (CAO) in Region VII;
6. En Banc Resolution creating the Needs Assessment Committee;
7. Appointment of Atty. Geraldine Faith A. Econg (now Associate Justice
of the Sandiganbayan) as then Chief of Office, Philippine Mediation
Center;
8. Appointment of Atty. Brenda Jay C. Mendoza-Angeles as Chief of
Office, Philippine Mediation Center;
9. Travel Authorities and Certification of Allowances granted to, and
received from, the Court by Atty. Maria Lourdes E. B. Oliveros by virtue
of such Travel Authorities; and
10.Certification of the respective dates when the positions of Deputy Clerk
‘of Court, Chief Attorney, and two (2) Assistant Court Administrators
became vacant.
‘The request for a certified copy of the Memorandum dated July 10, 2017 of
Hon. Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro is DENLED, without prejudice to a
subsequent request from the requesting party of certified copies of the documents
subject matter of the said Memorandum.” Sereno, C.J., no part. (adv17)
Very truly yours,
{Yo oor bone
FELIPA B. ANAMA
Clerk of CourtAM. No. 17-08-0386 *
Notice of Resolution +
‘August 8, 2017
HON. TERESITA J, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO (x)
Associate Justice
Supreme Court
MANUELITO R. LUNA (reg)
Rm, 412 FEMI Bldg. Annex
A. Soriano, Jr. Avenue, Intramuros, Manila
DANTE L; JIMENEZ (reg)
President, Volunteers Against Crime and
Corruption (VACC)
Requestey :
Unit 601 6" Floor, Pacific Corporate Center
431 West/Avenue, Quezon City
ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI (reg)
President, Vanguard of the Philippines
Constitution, Inc. (VPC)
Requester
No. 248, 3 Street, Dolores Homesite,
City of Sdn Femando City, Pampanga
ATTY. EDEN T. CANDELARIA (x)
Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer
‘Supreme: Court
ATTY. CORAZON G. FERRER-FLORES (»)
Deputy Clerk of Court & Chief
Fiscal Management & Budget Office
‘Supreme! Court
‘MS. RHODORA R. DACANAY (x)
‘SC Chief Judicial Staf Officer
Fiscal Management Division, FMBO
Supreme! Court <
AM, No,|17-08-03-SC
kat 88/17 [URest7] 8/1017
ayeBepublic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
August 10, 2017
Mr. DANTE L. JIMENEZ
President, Volunteers Againsts Crime and Corruption (VACC)
Requester
Unit 601 6" Floor, Pacific Corporate Center
134 West Avenue, Quezon City
Atty. ELIGIO P, MALLARI
President, Vanguard of the Philippines Constitution, Inc. (VPCI)
Requester
No. 248, 3” Street, Dolores Homesite,
City of San Fernando City, Pampanga
Dear Sirs:
This is in compliance with the resolution dated August 8, 2017 in A.M. No. 47-
08-03-SC which granted your request for certified copies of documents relative to, and
in connection with the impeachment complaint filed by VACC and VPCI against Chiof
Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno with the Secretary General of the House of
Representatives on August 2, 2047.
We are furnishing you with ceritified copies of the following documents:
4. En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 12-41-9-SC dated November 27, 2012;
2. Memorandum of Hon. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno on the
appointment of Atty. Solomon Lumba as Chief Justice Staff Head Il;
3. __Letter of Hon. Justice Antonio T. Carpio on the withdrawal of his
signature in the appointment of Atty. Solomon Lumba as Chief Justice
Staff Head I;
4. Memorandum of Hon. Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro to the
Court En Banc dated December 2012, seeking to recall the
‘Administrative Order of Hon. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno
creating the new Judiciary Decentralized Office (JDO) and re-opening the
Regional Court Administration Office (RCAO) in Region Vil;
5, _ En Banc Resolution creating the Needs Assessment Committee;
6. Appointment of Atty. Geraldine Faith A. Econg (now Associate Justice of
the Sandiganbayan) as then Chief of Office, Philippine Mediation Center;
‘Appointment of Atty. Bronda Jay C. Mendoza-Angeles as Chief of Office,
Philippine Mediation Center;8. Certification of the respective dates when the positions of Deputy Clerk
of Court, Chief Attorney, and two (2) Assistant Court Administrators
became vacant.
With regard to the Travel Authorities and Certificates for Allowances granted to
and receive from the Court by Atty. Oliveros by virtue of such Travel Authorities, the
Court will furnish you with certified copies of the same in due time as we are in the
process of retrieving said documents. Likewise, there Is no resolution expressly
recalling the November 27, 2042 resolution in A.M. No. 42-41-9-SC. But see herein
attached resolution dated January 22, 2013 In the same abovementioned matter.
Yabwle pentane
FELIPA B. ANAMA
Clerk of countyRepublic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City
RESOLUTION OF ENDORSEMENT
WHEREAS, incorporated herein by reference is the verified complaint of MR.
DANTE LA. JIMENEZ AND ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI for the impeachment of
SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO;
WHEREAS, under Article XI of the Constitution, a verified complaint may be filed
by any Member of House of Representatives, or by any citizen upon @ Resolution of
Endorsement by any Member thereof;
WHEREAS, WE, the undersigned, have examined the aforementioned Verified
‘Complaint for Impeachment and found the same to be sufficient in form and substance,
NOW, THEREFORE, WE hereby resolve to endorse, as WE hereby endorse the
attached verified complaint of MR. DANTE LA. JIMENEZ AND ATTY. ELIGIO P.
MALLARI for the impeachment of SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA
LOURDES P.A. SERENO, and strongly recommend that the same be given due course
by the House of Representatives.
We, the undersigned endorsers, after having been sworn in accordance with law,
depose and state’ that We are the proponents/sponsors of the above entitled Resolution
of Endorsement; and that We have caused the preparation of the above Resolution of
Endorsament.
Hon. M, RB. GK Hon.
(Name and Signature) (Name and Sig
Representative, 2/4 District of LPs Representative, __
Hon. BEA) B a
(Name and Signature) Mfa i (Name and Sipfaturey YACAP PC
Representative, dele, pode Representative, __ District of
4-"ecmms
District of
z a
Hon Atnolfo A Geves, Jf. ton. A. TLENAS
(Name and Signature) (Name an signature)
Representative, #4 District of Representative, __ ee fi ot
Hon. Baw z Crardoue Hon, ROGELLO J Bens
(Name and Sionaturs Were ble ea ature) ae
Representative,’ istrict of ef sentatives istrictof
Captor Gackay read paovin cEHon. SP ,TR Hon.
(Name and Signature) (Nawé and Signature)
Representative, $ ee Distris Representative, GDl-District of *
Abate Z WO 1Ld
Hon, Hon. RAUL C. “TUPAS
(Nafne and Signajlre) (Name and Signature)
Rep ive __ District of Representative, 97tDistrict of
AgWoUNG oD MIT gs Ii2te
Fey i Bea UR SAtane #60 ton, CAwuty ds ng
(Nam&and Signature) (Name and Signature)
Representative, Gf Distigrot™ abn Representative, Law. District of
in REDD ML fl » CHET LD
(Name and Signature) ‘
Representative, daSDistrict Coty
Hon.
(Name and Signature)
Representative, __ District of
Hon.
(Name and Signature)
Representative, __ District of
Hon. Hon
(Name and Signature) (Name and Signature)
Representative, __ District of Representative, __ District of
Hon. Hon.
(Name and Signature)
Representative, __ District of
(Name and Signature)
Representative, __ District of
Hon.
(Name and Signature)
Representative, __ District of
Hon.
(Name and Signature)
Representative, _ District ofSUBSRIBED AND SWORN TO before me rie fe day of geld
at the House of Representatives, Quezon City, Philippines, by the above Members
of the House of Representatives.
ATTY: SAR S IT PAREJA
Secretar eral