MANILA, Philippines — Pinaaaresto na ng Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 206 si dating Bureau of Corrections Director Franklin Bucayu at tatlo pang kapwa akusado ni Sen. Leila de Lima. Bukod kay Bucayu, ipinaaaresto na rin si Wilfredo Elli, Joenel Sanchez na dating bodyguard ni de Lima at si Jose Adrian Dera na isa umano sa mga bagman noon ng mambabatas.

Sa kautusang inilabas ni Judge Patria Manalastas de Leon, nakitaan ng probable cause ng korte upang arestuhin sina de Lima sa kasong illegal drug trading. Walang piyansang inirekomenda para sa mga akusado. Pero dahil nakakulong na si de Lima at dating driver bodyguard na si Ronnie Dayan, itinakda na lamang ang arraignment ng dalawa sa December 8, alas 8:30 ng umaga.

Sa Bilibid naman, babasahan ng sakdal sa December 12, alas-2 ng hapon ang high profile inmate na si Jaybee Sebastian na kapwa akusado rin ni de Lima.

Paliwanag ng Korte, wala nang saysay ang pagtutol nina de Lima at Bucayu sa jurisdiction ng RTC matapos itong pagtibayin ng Korte Suprema kayat marapat lamang na ituloy na ang paglilitis sa kaso.

Aapela naman ang kampo ni de Lima sa kautusan ng Muntinlupa RTC.

Nag-ugat ang ikatlong kaso laban kay de Lima sa umano’y pagkunsinti nito sa talamak na bentahan ng droga sa Bilibid mula 2013 hanggang 2015.

Sinasabing nakatanggap si de Lima ng P70 million mula sa mga high profile inmate galing sa pinagbentahan ng iligal na droga.

Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro says she should have been consulted in the issuance of the 2013 TRO involving party lists

MANILA, Philippines – Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro on Wednesday, November 29, said Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno’s actions in issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) on party-list proclamations during the 2013 elections were “grossly unprocedural.”

De Castro was speaking during the House justice committee’s hearing to determine probable cause in an impeachment complaint against Sereno.

Larry Gadon, the complainant, claims Sereno “tampered with and altered” the contents of the TRO sent by De Castro, who was the member-in-charge of the case. (READ: How Sereno answered her impeachment complaint)

“The case was not raffled to her. I am the member-in-charge so I should be the one consulted,” said De Castro, upon questioning by Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas.

Her “unprecedented” appearance before the committee, thus far, has revealed the processes behind Supreme Court decisions – as De Castro promised. It has also inadvertently revealed divisions in the Supreme Court under Sereno.

De Castro was the member-in-charge for the petition filed by the disqualified Coalition of Association of Senior Citizens party-list.

De Castro had wanted the TRO to cover only the Senior Citizens party-list but Sereno eventually issued a “blanket” TRO, which meant that all winning party lists could not be proclaimed.

The eventual TRO, and Sereno’s apparent failure to consult De Castro was “grossly unprocedural,” said the associate justice.

Exercise of discretion

In her verified answer to Gadon’s complaint, Sereno said: “Since Justice De Castro was merely ‘recommending’ a course of action to the Chief Justice, and further considering that the proposed ‘temporary restraining order’ was merely a ‘draft,’ the Chief Justice can wholly accept, modify or even reject Justice De Castro’s recommendation. The Chief Justice could not be accused of falsifying anything. In the exercise of her own discretion and authority to issue TROs when the Court is in recess, the Chief Justice elected to issue a temporary restraining order under terms she considered just and proper.”

De Castro rejected this argument. “I disagree because I am the member-in-charge and as I mentioned, under our rules, the member-in-charge oversees the progress in these cases. The Chief Justice only issues the TRO but she has no authority to act on the case on her own,” she said.

The associate justice added that even if the SC was in recess, Sereno still should have consulted her.

De Castro also seemed miffed, in particular because in the TRO, Sereno made a reference to a recommendation she made. “If she has her own idea or own assessment as to the scope of the TRO, she should have at least consulted the member-in-charge. In that case, she should have consulted me before issuing the TRO because the member-in-charge is the one who studied the case,” she added.

Asked by Siquijor Representative Ramon Rocamora if Sereno’s only fault was not consulting her, De Castro replied: “My objection is not just that in the fact that she did not consult me. If only she consulted me, I would have explained to her that she cannot include other parties.”

“The thing is, she wrote in the TRO that it was upon my written recommendation. So why did she put there that the TRO she issued was upon my recommendation? That is not true. What I’m saying is that if she wanted to change, then she should have issued it on her own authority without reference to the member-in-charge,” she added.

The hearing is still ongoing as of posting.

Thus far, De Castro is the only associate justice who has stood as resource person in the impeachment case. The committee has also invited Associate Justice Noel Tijam, retired justice Arturo Brion, and other Supreme Court employees. – Rappler.com

#CJSereno #Impeachment #SupremeCourt #SerenoImpeachment

MANILA – (UPDATE 11:52 A.M.) Supreme Court Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro on Wednesday testified before the House Committee on Justice hearing the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, confirming the serious protest she had lodged against Sereno’s alleged misrepresentation of the en banc’s Nov. 27, 2012 deliberations on the creation of the Regional Court Administrator’s Office in Region 7.

Sereno’s alleged “fabrication” of a resolution that misrepresented the intent of the en banc on the RCAO 7 – merely to study the need for, not yet create the office – was one of the grounds for impeachment listed in the complaint by lawyer Larry Gadon.

Sereno’s Administrative Order 175-2012 revives the Regional Court Administration Office-7 (RCAO-7) in Cebu City. The order was meant to decentralize the Manila-based Office of the Court Administrator under Midas Marquez but was implemented without the required approval of the en banc.

Fielding questions mainly from Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas, Justice De Castro said that after she wrote Sereno to protest the issuance of a resolution that reflected the supposed “ratification” by the en banc, in its Nov. 27, 2012 deliberations, of the revival of the RCAO 7, the en banc met anew on the matter and issued a new resolution. Prodded by Fariñas, Justice De Castro said the en banc resolution “effectively overturned” the resolution issued by Sereno.

“The exchanges among the justice was clear, to just create a study group and the Chief Justice even said I will amend my Administrative Order, and I was relying on that,” De Castro said.

De Castro said she had also taken issue with Sereno’s move to designate Judge Geraldine Faith Econg – someone outside the Office of Court Administrator and accountable only to the Chief Justice – to head the RCAO 7.

Asked if Sereno replied to her letter protesting the apparent misrepresentation, De Castro replied, “Hindi po [No, sir]. She did not reply at all.” Even during the deliberations (the matter was again taken up on Dec. 7), she did not explain [why she issued ] AO 175, Sereno did not address the issue.

In the Dec. 11, 2012 deliberations, the en banc subsequently decided to form a study committee to revisit the need to revive the RCAO and decentralize the functions of the Office of the Court Administrator, and designated Associate Justice Jose Perez to head the study group.

“It is a subtle way of overturning” the Sereno’s issuance of her resolution, said De Castro, noting that “we didn’t want to embarrass” the Chief Justice.

“I’m not after putting her down, I just want to correct what has been done to put things in order as decided by the court in previous resolutions,” De Castro added.

SERENO CAMP INSISTS: NO FALSIFICATION

Reacting to the proceedings at the House Justice committee Thursday morning, the lawyers for Sereno, who have been sending running commentaries to the media, asserted that the “SC en banc approved the creation of Regional Court Administrative Office (RCAO) in Region 7.’

Sereno’s counsel said: “It is false to say that the Chief Justice acted unilaterally and without the knowledge of the Court En Banc when she issued A.O. No. 175-2012. Precisely, the creation of said office, its budget as well as the designation of its staff, had already been approved and delineated in earlier Resolutions of the Court. The Chief Justice, after studying the problems besetting far-flung courts, simply implemented these earlier Court En Banc resolutions creating an RCAO in the seventh judicial region. Contrary to Complainant’s baseless allegations, there is no En Banc Resolution nullifying, superseding or otherwise “scrapping” the Supreme Court’s resolutions creating the RCAO-7, including the assailed 27 November 2012 Resolution in A.M. No.12-11-9-SC.”

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTION? DE CASTRO MUM

Asked anew by Farinas if Sereno’s issuance of Administrative Order 175-2012 was a violation of the Constitution and the law, De Castro refused to answer.

Farinas added, reading De Castro’s letter, that the said administrative order “has transgressed the said constitutional authority of the court en banc and the statutory authority of the Office nof the Court Administrator.”

Farinas also noted that P.D. No. 828 (Creating the Office of the Court Administrator in the Supreme Court) stated that the Chief Justice can only appoint staff with the approval of the court en banc.

Court Administrator Midas Marquez, meanwhile, gave the lawmakers a background of why the RCAO concept came to be, during the term of Chief Justice Art Panganiban in 2006. It was a move to decentralize the OCA functions to boost its fiscal responsbility, accountability and efficiency.

By Lira Dalangin-Fernandez, InterAksyon | News5 | November 29, 2017

#SerenoImpeachment

Appearing at the House of Representatives Committee on Justice Supreme Court CJ Sereno IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS,  SC Associate Justice De Castro stated that the Chief Magistrate issued administrative orders regarding the formation of a RCAO (Regional Court Administrative Office) when in fact the said creation was NOT APPROVED by the en banc Supreme Court. Justice De Castro issued a memorandum citing the ERROR yet CJ Sereno REITERATED her already REPUDIATED interpretation of the en banc deliberations. Representative Kit Belmonte commented that the Chief Justice may have FABRICATED the minutes and inquired why such discussions were being conducted under public spotlight (rather than in the privacy of an executive session). Complainant Gadon said the Chief Justice FALSIFIED the court documents since the Sereno first resolution did not reflect what transpired in the deliberations. Reacting to the De Castro memo chiding the Chief Justice for the “error’, CJ Sereno supposedly said that she would correct the mistake or oversight, HOWEVER, the Chief Justice, instead of AMENDING her order, made a second resolution REPEATING her blunder.

*********

Sereno’s order on judicial office did not conform to en banc decision: De Castro

SC magistrate De Castro appears at Sereno impeach hearing

MANILA, Philippines — The Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 206 has ordered the arrest of former Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) director Franklin Bucayu along with three co-accused of Sen. Leila de Lima in connection with the illegal drug trade in the New Bilibid Prison (NBP).

Judge Patria Manalastas de Leon found probable cause in issuing a warrant for the arrest of Bucayu, De Lima’s alleged bagmen Wilfredo Elli and Jose Adrian Dera, and De Lima’s former bodyguard Joenel Sanchez.

“After a thorough examination of the records and he preliminary investigation, the court finds probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest against all the accused, without bail,” De Leon wrote in the order.

In February, the Department of Justice filed three separate cases against De Lima before the Muntinlupa court over her alleged participation in the proliferation of illegal drugs at the NBP when she was justice secretary.

De Lima was charged with violating Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 for allegedly allowing the trading of illegal drugs at the NBP in relation to Sections 3, 26 and 28 of the anti-narcotics law.

The National Bureau of Investigation and the Volunteers against Crime and Corruption recommended the filing of charges against De Lima based on testimonies during the House of Representatives’ inquiry into the alleged illegal drug trade in the NBP.

De Lima’s drug-related case was raffled off to Muntinlupa RTC Branches 204, 205 and 206.

At Branch 206, De Lima and Bucayu were charged with drug-related cases for allegedly tolerating the widespread drug trade inside the maximum security compound along with Elli, Sanchez, Dera and NBP inmate Jaybee Sebastian.

The Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the Philippine National Police is yet to receive a copy of the arrest warrant for Bucayu and the other accused.

The CIDG will implement the warrant of arrest once it is officially transmitted by the Muntinlupa court.

The Muntinlupa court also set the arraignment for De Lima and former bodyguard Ronnie Dayan on Dec. 8, while high profile inmate Sebastian will be arraigned on Dec. 12.

By Robertzon Ramirez and Emmanuel Tupas (The Philippine Star) November 29, 2017

#WarOnDrugs #DeLima #Bilibid #NewBilibidPrison #Dayan #Bucayu #BuCor

The Supreme Court has allowed its justices and employees invited by the House of Representatives to attend impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

Invited by Congress include Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo De Castro, Arturo Brion (retired) Information Chief Atty. Theodore Te, Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez and En Banc Clerk of Court Felipa Anama.

De Castro expressed willingness to cooperate with Congress but told the lawmakers that they need to seek permission from the high court en banc (full court).

During Tuesday’s en banc, the high court said De Castro is allowed to testify on the following:

• Her exchange of communication with the Chief Justice regarding the case involving the Coalition of Association of Senior Citizens in the Philippines Party List;

• The case on the appointments of Sandiganbayan justices;

• On the petition of then Solicitor General, now Supreme Court Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza about the shortlist of candidates for the high court.

In all three cases, however, De Castro is not allowed to discuss the court’s deliberations.

With regards to the other officials of the high court invited by the House Committee on Justice, they are allowed to testify only on administrative matters.

“The Court is not requiring them but the court is giving them clearance if they so wish to appear and testify,” Te said at a press conference./je

Tetch Torres-Tupas @T2TupasINQINQUIRER.net November 28, 2017

*************

SC allows justices to attend Sereno impeach hearings

************

3 SC justices ready to testify at Sereno impeach hearings

Aquino says Sereno distracted by impeachment proceedings

********************

By: Marlon Ramos, Vince F. Nonato Team Inquirer November 27, 2017

Supreme Court Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro may be cited for violating the high court’s internal rules if she testifies against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in the impeachment hearing at the House of Representatives without full-court approval, according to a spokesperson for the country’s top magistrate.

The same goes for other Supreme Court justices and officials who have been invited by the committee to testify at the impeachment hearings, although they are unlikely to appear before the panel on Monday as they first have to get clearance from the full court, said Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, the committee chair.

“The [Supreme Court] sessions are executive in character, with only its members present. The deliberations are confidential and should not be disclosed to outside parties, except if authorized by the court,” the spokesperson for Sereno, Aldwin Salumbides, said in a statement on Sunday.

Deliberations confidential

The policies spelled out in the internal rules of the Supreme Court “safeguard the confidentiality of sessions and internal documents” of the country’s highest judicial body, Salumbides said.

The rollos, or court documents, may be released “only upon an official written request from the judicial staff head or the chief of office of the requesting office,” he said.

“All [people] handling the rollos are bound by the same strict confidentiality rules,” he added.

Salumbides’ remarks came on the heels of an invitation from the House justice committee to De Castro to attend its hearing on Monday on the impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Lorenzo Gadon against Sereno.

At the hearing on Wednesday, Gadon identified De Castro as the source of confidential information that he claimed was given to him by Manila Times reporter Jomar Canlas involving a temporary restraining order that was allegedly tampered with by Sereno.

But De Castro issued a statement as the hearing was going on, denying she released to Canlas “any information, report or document regarding the work of the court.”

Gadon may be liable for perjury if the information is proved to be false.

“This is under oath and so he will have to answer for his actions,” Umali told reporters after the hearing on Wednesday.

Lawmakers on the justice committee agreed to invite De Castro to testify at the hearing on Monday, but Salumbides said he did not believe she would appear before the panel.

Highly irregular

“As a lawyer, I find it highly irregular for a magistrate, for a Supreme Court justice, to go down and take the witness stand. It gives me goose bumps. It seems inappropriate for a justice to suddenly turn witness,” he said.

If she does without full-court approval, she may be cited for violating the high court’s internal rules, he said.

Besides De Castro, Supreme Court Associate Justice Noel Tijam, Court Administrator Midas Marquez, Public Information Office chief Theodore Te and full-court clerk Felipa Anama have also been invited to testify at the hearings.

But Umali, speaking in a radio interview on Sunday, said the justices and other Supreme Court officials would “most likely not” appear in Monday’s hearing because they needed to secure full-court approval first.

The full court meets on Tuesdays.

‘They are willing’

“They are willing, except that they need the approval of [the full court],” Umali said.

Gadon has accused Sereno of failing to declare her real wealth, buying a luxury car using government funds and making questionable decisions without consulting the rest of the court, among other charges.

Earlier, Umali’s panel had determined that Gadon’s complaint was sufficient in form and substance.

The panel is now trying to determine whether there is probable cause to impeach Sereno.

Gadon claimed Sereno called Tijam to manipulate the transfer of the cases involving members of the Maute terror group.

Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II may also not attend Monday’s hearing to testify on this issue.

Umali said “they [could be] accommodated on Tuesday” instead.

The justice committee would tackle another seven allegations against Sereneo after deliberating on seven accusations on Wednesday, he said.

Subpoena for Sereno

Umali said the committee was still “studying” if Sereno could be subpoenaed to answer the allegations, as she had repeatedly declined to face her accuser and pressed for her lawyers to represent her instead.

He said the committee had power to issue an arrest warrant for Sereno, if she would not heed the subpoena.

“If there are things that she should testify on, the committee might probably issue a subpoena. And a subpoena has coercive powers; if it is not followed, we would be obliged to issue a warrant,” Umali said.

“This is a constitutional power to pursue a constitutional mandate in which … the separation of powers [as a] coequal branch may not … be invoked in this particular instance,” he said. /atm /pdi

https://balitangbalita.com/2017/11/27/rep-umali-says-justice-panel-can-order-arrest-of-supreme-court-chief-justice-sereno/

#Sereno #Impeachment

House Justice Committee chairman Rep. Reynaldo Umali said on Sunday morning that the panel has the power to issue an arrest order for Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in connection with the impeachment complaint against her.

In an interview on Super Radyo dzBB, Umali also said that the order doesn’t even need the approval of Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez.

Sereno has refused to appear before the committee to answer allegations against her in the impeachment complaint now being discussed in the House panel for the determination of probable cause.

PHOTO: Rep Umali, CJ Sereno

But this, Umali said, is the last resort.

In a separate interview on dzBB, Attorney  Carlo Cruz, one of the spokespersons for Chief Justice Sereno, said that the justice committee should consider the principle of separation of powers of the three branches of government.

“Dapat tingnan na ang bawat sangay ng pamahalaan ay may kasarinlan sa ilalim ng ating sistema,” he said.

However, Umali,  in the earlier interview, pointed out that Sereno is a respondent of an impeachment case.

But Cruz, said that Sereno is still the Chief Justice even if she is a respondent.

“Hindi naman nawawala ang kanyang pagiging punong mahistrado dahil nanging respondent siya sa impeachment case.”

Unopposed evidence

On Monday,  the House justice committee will continue with the hearing of the determination of probable cause of the impeachment case.

Last week, Sereno refused to appear before the committee to defend herself from the accusations, with her camp insisting the right to cross-examine the witnesses.

Umali said, “Ang first option is dahil hindi siya humarap e ‘di kung ano man yung ebidensiyang naihain na hindi na-controvert o hindi nakontra ay siyang mananatili at magiging basehan ng komite.”

“Now on the other hand, ‘pag meron talagang mga bagay na dapat niyang testiguhan ay marahil ay mag-isue [ang] komite ng ‘ika nga ay subpoena at siyempre ‘pag subpoena, coercive powers ‘yan at hindi po sinunod ay maoobliga tayong magissue ng warrant.”

He said that such “coercive power” can be used by the panel while separation of powers on a co-equal branch could not be invoked in the impeachment proceeding.

“Sa aking pananaw ay ang poder ng Committee on Justice at ng impeachment prosecutor ay…meron kaming poder para gamitin ika nga yung coercive power ng komite under the Constitution so this is a Constitutional power to pursue a Constitutional mandate of which yung respondent ay respondent,” Umali said.

“Therefore yung ganong power ang ibig sabihin separation of powers on co-equal branch may not be invoked in this particular instance,” he added.

Earlier, Sereno said that she had formally tasked her legal team to act on her behalf in all stages of her impeachment proceedings.

The top magistrate had also insisted on her right to counsel and cross-examine the witnesses that will be presented in the proceedings through her counsel.

But panel denied the Chief Justice’s legal counsel the chance to cross-examine the witnesses.

Sereno is being accused of culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust filed by Lawyer Lorenzo “Larry” Gadon.

The impeachment complaint against her has been determined sufficient in form, substance and also with sufficient grounds.  —LBG, GMA News

MANILA, Philippines — Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II on Friday tagged former budget and public works secretaries over a supposed multi-billion scam over road right of way in General Santos City.

In a press conference on Friday, Aguirre said that a witness, a private citizen, has come forward to reveal the government may have been duped into paying P8.7 billion for a road right of way (RROW) scam in Mindanao. The National Bureau of Investigation was also tapped to conduct a case build up on the information.

The justice chief said that the NBI is looking into the “potential” liability of former Budget Secretary Florencio Abad and former Public Works Secretary Rogelio Singson for “approving” the payment of the dubious RROW.

Singson declined to comment on the allegation, saying that he has yet to read the case.

Abad, for his part, asserted that the “accusation is baseless and therefore not true.”

He added: “I and the [Department of Budget and Management] were never part of the negotiations for that transaction. The [Department of Public Works and Highways] will be in the best position to shed light on the issue.”

Singson and Abad served as cabinet secretaries under the administration of former President Benigno Aquino III.

Earlier on Friday, Aguirre revealed that the NBI is also conducting a case build-up on the former president’s involvement over the Disbursement Acceleration Program and pork barrel scam.

Aguirre, in a statement, said that the group’s scheme involves submitting “fake titles in the name of non-existent persons to allow them to claim from the DPWH the just compensation from the expropriation of land which will be supposedly occupied by government projects.”

Also tagged in the allegation are Wilma Mamburan, Col. Chino Mamburan, Merceditas Dumlao and Nelson Ti, who is said to be the group’s financier.

The justice chief said that the witness is already given provisional government protection.

He declined to provide more details on the allegations and said that he will ask permission to reveal the contents of the affidavit submitted by the witness next week.

By Kristine Joy Patag (philstar.com) November 24, 2017

************************************