As the House of Representatives’ Committee on Justice, led by Duterte Man Rep Reynaldo Umali, continued its hearings to decide on whether or not there is probable cause for the Sereno impeachment, what became obvious was that this was a concerted effort to get the Chief Justice to crumble and just resign. After all, the allegations against her were being made public, and in the hands of Duterte’s men in Congress, these were being spun into fact. This is exactly what they did to Senator Leila de Lima, who used every platform available to her to fight back, hysteria and tears and all, including playing the victim card, which also arguably made things worse for her: this gave Duterte’s propagandists, troll army, and social media employees the ammunition to use her as object and subject of their propaganda.
CJ Sereno knows better, and refuses to play Duterte’s game. And they must hate her for not playing into their hands.
Note that in 2016 she refused to get embroiled in a word war with Duterte. Note too that she has generally refused to talk about the nitty-gritty of Duterte man Larry Gadon’s complaint, and has let her spokespersons speak for her. When Sereno does speak, it is in broad strokes, bigger pictures.
Note as well that at this point, Duterte’s men in the House Justice Committee have already revealed they are out to get her: they disallowed her lawyers to cross-examine witnesses — a right that is due Sereno; and opposition Congress Reps were also disallowed from becoming part of the impeachment hearings.
It’s clear that Duterte’s men are making sure that no one stands in the way of impeaching CJ Sereno. After all, they have Duterte to please, he who had said since 2016, that Sereno was in his way.
Jan 3 2018: News leaks that Rep Reynaldo Umali is being considered as the next Secretary of Justice, when current Sec Vitaliano Aguirre runs for the Senate. He denies the news. “Produkto siguro ng fake news iyan. Fake news dahil wala pong ganyang napag-uusapan at ako’y walang kamalay-malay sa mga ganyan.”
Jan 4 2018: Rep Umali says it is a necessary evil to declare no elections in 2019, given the impeachment complaint against Sereno and the task of changing the Constitution — as Duterte wants.
“I guess it will be a necessary evil, if you want to say that — that we may have to do our constitutional mandate as to be able to complete the process of changing the constitution. Many or most of the members of the Congress now would either be graduating or running for other public offices and when that happens we may not be able even to muster a quorum.”
Jan 14 2018: Rep Umali announces there is no more time to impeach the Ombudsman.
Jan 18 2018: The House Justice Committee start talking to media about lining up psychiatrists to talk about the CJ Sereno’s test results.
Feb 9 2018: Alvarez declares that he would like to include Umali in his list of Senatoriables for 2019.
Feb 23 2018: In a TV interview, Sereno is asked about the impeachment complaint.
“I’ve already said this in a public interview, I think the probability is quite high that they will proceed, as I think, as originally planned. <…> I think we can already take the cue from the statements made by the members of the House Committee on Justice, and from the leadership of the House, and from some of the supporters of the impeachment complaint.”
She denies any wrongdoing: “”I think you shouldn’t believe because they are not true.”
Feb 25 2018: Rep. Reynaldo Umali declares that Sereno is as good as impeached in the House of Representatives.
Feb 27 2018: News breaks that Sereno is taking a leave of absence from the Supreme Court, from March 1 to 15, to prepare for a possible impeachment trial.
ABSCBN News sources say that Sereno was confronted in a “heated discussion” at the SC’s en banc session about allegations in the impeachment case, with “several justices asking her to resign, and others raising the issue of loss of confidence citing the gravity of the allegations against her.”
Sereno’s spokesperson denies the news and says that she only advanced a scheduled wellness leave originally schedules for March 12 to 23: “No, she’s not forced. It’s her personal decision to go actually on leave. There is nothing, I think, that we can show based on records that the Supreme Court has done to force her in any way to actually take this leave.”
Feb 27 2018: Rep Umali questions the conflicting information on Sereno’s leave, as he received a text message that belies the wellness leave: “‘Justices said that what was agreed upon during the en banc was an indefinite leave by the Chief Justice, not a wellness leave.’
Umali continued: “Bakit ganito? Nililinlang na natin ang tao. Hindi naman pala ito, pero ‘yung lumalabas sa bibig niya or bibig ng kaniyang spokesperson, iba. Pati ‘yata spokesperson niya nahawa na sa kasinungalingan.”
Feb 28 2018: Alvarez declares that there is now enough reason for the Office of the Solicitor General to file a petition with the Supreme Court to invalidate Sereno’s appointment: “Kung ako ang tatanungin mo, dapat may mag-file ng case sa Supreme Court questioning the validity of the appointment. The most logical (body that) can do this is the Office of the Solicitor General, they should study this angle.”
Mar 1 2018: Sereno’s indefinite leave begins.
Mar 5 2018: SC employees wear red during the flag ceremony in support of the justices who declared Sereno’s leave to be indefinite.
Mar 5 2018: As suggested by Alvarez on Feb 28, Solicitor General Jose Calida, Duterte’s Man as the principal law officer and legal defender of the Government <emphasis mine>, files a quo warranto petition, as “an act of kindness” towards Sereno so that she will not have “to undergo the indignity that the late Chief Justice Renato Corona suffered at the hands of politicians who unjustly convicted him.”
What is a quo warranto petition? In the case of Duterte’s man Calida, this invalidates the appointment of Sereno as chief justice, on the basis of her “violations of court rules and procedures, among them her alleged failure to submit her complete Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.”
In reality, these are mere allegations as she has yet to be proven guilty of these violations. The quo warranto petition of the SolGen already asks the SC to oust Sereno, based on these allegations. The impeachment itself would be unnecessary, and Sereno will not get her day in impeachment court.
Mar 5 2018: Opposition Rep Edcel Lagman calls on the seven associate justices to recuse themselves from the quo warranto petition decision.
The seven associate justices who unconstitutionally attempted to oust Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno must recuse themselves or inhibit from the adjudication of the quo warranto petition which is expected to be filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida questioning the validity of Sereno’s appointment.
Mar 5 2018: Duterte’s Man Rep Umali says that Congress will, on March 8, decide on whether or not there is probably cause for the impeachment of CJ Sereno. He details the schedule of proceedings: the week of March 12 to 16, the committee will vote on the committee report and the articles of impeachment, after which “the articles of impeachment will be submitted to the plenary for action before Congress closes its session for the summer break.”
Umali says there is no conflict between the Congress proceedings and the quo warranto petition in the SC: “These are separate and independent actions based on different grounds.”
Rep Fariñas, another Duterte man, meanwhile adds onto the Umali timeline on Mar 6, saying that the “earliest the plenary could vote is by May. A vote of at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives, or 98 out of the 292 incumbent congressmen, may then start an impeachment trial at the Senate.”
Mar 5 2018: Senate President Koko Pimentel questions the quo warranto petition.
Mar 6 2018: The SC requires CJ Sereno to respond to the quo warranto petition against her filed by Duterte’s man Sol Gen Calida. They give her 10 days to respond.
Mar 6 2018: Justice Marvic Leonen is the lone justice to block the attempt to oust CJ Sereno through the quo warranto petition. According to SC spokesperson Theodor Te: “Leonen dissented on the ground that in his opinion, the petition should be dismissed outright.”
Two Inquirer sources say further of Leonen’s dissenting opinion:
“He said the justices of the Supreme Court, being impeachable officers, can be removed only through impeachment,” the first source said.
“For him, the quo warranto petition may supplant the constitutional requirements of taking out impeachable officers from authority,” the second source said.
Mar 6 2018: Duterte’s Congress Reps Fariñas and SoH Alvarez say it would be “prudent” to wait for the SC decision on the quo warranto petition of Duterte’s Sol Gen Calida: “if the Supreme Court grants the quo warranto, that means the appointment has been invalidated. So, who else can we impeach? No one.” Alvarez says though that the impeachment proceedings will continue in Congress.
Mar 6 2018: Duterte says in a speech that he “cannot oust Sereno.”
Congress, you be the judge. Hindi ako pwede, executive department ako. Co-equal kami eh so hindi ako pwedeng mag-[desisyon]. Executive department lang ako.
Sabihin n’yo ako na naman nag-ano sa kanya. You can ask anybody – I never initiated ‘to si Sereno.
Eh I just called her attention because of the so many cases pending tapos pa-iba ang decision niya. ‘Yung the very complaint now of the Justices. ‘Yun man ‘yon. O kita mo, ‘di lumabas rin.
Mar 6 2018: Various groups unite behind CJ Sereno in a protest at the House of Representatives.
Mar 7 2018: Duterte Man Rep Rodel Batocabe takes a stand against the quo warranto petition.
“Ang Korte Suprema, they can stretch the interpretation so as to include all the other requirements. But as I said, this will open the floodgates to other quo warranto proceedings against impeachable officers thereby emasculating the power of Congress to impeach officials who are expressly stated in the Constitution to be impeachable.”
Mar 7 2018: Former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay warns against the quo warranto petition of Duterte’s Sol Gen Calida:
“If the court rules that way, it opens up a lot of potential can of worms. Everybody’s appointment can be subjected to that kind of scrutiny, even non-constitutional requirements. <…> You can question the election of the president by looking at certain filings he made before the Commission on Elections or whether he filed the SALN before. You can question anybody else’s appointment or election if that person is an impeachable official.”
Click here for Part 1: 2016 and Part 2: 2017 of this timeline to impeachment.