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\CRAIMGot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, 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 intimes 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 2discarded. 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/SCen 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 s1am 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. 6De 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 THEABSENCE 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 8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 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 9RCAO-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 10Deliberation 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] aThe 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 12instrumentality 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 13RESOURCE 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 14The 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 16FOR 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 18MCLE 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 | saidconstitutional 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 'sRepublic 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.. G2Resolution 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 ServicesRepublic 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 counrMARIANO 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 CourtSupreme 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; aAM. 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 CourtAM. 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 ayeBepublic 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 countyRepublic 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 cEHon. 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 ofSUBSRIBED 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