REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE
House of Representatives Complex
Constitution Hills, Quezon City

IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO AS CHIEF
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

ATTY. LORENZO G. GADON,

Complainant.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

The Respondent, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Supreme
Court most respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the above-titled case
and aver that:

INTRODUCTION

The power of impeachment is given by this Constitution to bring great offenders

to punishment. It is calculated to bring them to punishment for crimes which it is not easy
to describe, but which every one must be convinced is a high crime and misdemeanor
against the government. (James Iredell)

Impeachment, for Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (CJ Sereno), came
like a thief in the night. Even as she stands before this Tribunal to defend herself, her
greatest fear is the danger that lady justice herself must face.
 What we have before us, then, is a Complaint born out of conflated hearsay
derived from libelous news reports. What we also have are hidden forces who will be
benefited by CJ Serenoss ouster and who are conspiring and causing intrigue behind the
scene to ensure her removal and their re-emergence into power to the detriment of the
Bench, Bar and the populace. Certainly, such cannot be the backdrop, purpose and
consequence of impeachment.

The impeachment process - while admittedly political in character - has therefore

become a partisan orgy, devoid of any mature deliberation and of lawful purpose
whatsoever, especially in a precedent-setting and historic event involving no less than the
impeachment of the Chief Justice of the Philippines. When impeachment results from a
rushed, partisan and insidious attempt to unseat a sitting Chief Justice, instead of a
rational and careful debate on the merits of the Articles of Impeachment, the arbitrariness
of such an act comes to the fore, taints the process and amounts to an unveiled threat
against the other justices of the Supreme Court.

In these proceedings, attention will therefore be repeatedly drawn to certain

general principles central to a correct resolution of the issues. The most fundamental of
these principles is the rule that a man is responsible only for the natural, logical
consequences of his acts. Conversely, a man cannot be held responsible for that which is
not his doing. The related rule of parity provides that there must be identical
consequences for identical acts, and to punish one for his acts, but not another, is to have
no law at all.

In this critical moment of our constitutional history, my hope is that the justices of
the Supreme Court will not capitulate and that others in the judiciary will not tremble in
their boots and that the legislators administer true political justice, with due regard, not
only to the facts and appicable law, but also to the impact of their decision on the future
of our democratic system of government and on the delivery of justice through the
ongoing reforms. Most importantly, that the Constitution will be uphold at all times.

CHARGES

Complainant filed his duly verified Complaint for the Impeachment of Maria
Lourdes P.A. Sereno, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of the
Philippines, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, on the ground of
culpable violation of the Constitution, corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal of
public trust, brought about by her mental disorder thereby rendering her unfit to be and
continue as Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines.
 BASIS OF THE CHARGES

The Complainant hereby accuses Respondent Sereno of numerous acts that

comprise: (A) culpable violation of the Constitution, (B) corruption, (C) other high
crimes, and (D) betrayal of public trust, in the following manner, thereby rendering her
unfit to be and continue as Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines:

1. RESPONDENT SERENO COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE

CONSTITUTION WHEN -

1.1. She falsified the Resolution of the Supreme Court in A.M. No. 12-11-9-
SC.

1.2. She falsified the Temporary Restraining Order of the Supreme Court in
G.R. Nos.206844-45.

1.3. She falsified the Resolution of the Supreme Court in A.M. No. 16-08-04-
SC.

1.4. She delayed action on the numerous Petitions for Retirement Benefits of
Justices and Judges, and the surviving spouses of deceased Justices
and Judges.

1.5. She manipulated and thereafter delayed the resolution of A.M. No. 17-06-
02-SC (the request of the Secretary of Justice to transfer the Maute
cases outside of Mindanao) after realizing that she lost in the voting.

1.6. She failed to truthfully disclose her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and
Net Worth or SALN.

1.7. She manipulated the shortlist of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to
exclude then Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza, for personal
and political reasons, thereby disgracing then Sol. Gen. Jardeleza, and
curtailing the Presidents power to appoint him.

1.8. She manipulated the shortlist of the JBC for the six (6) vacancies in the
Sandiganbayan, for personal and political reasons, thereby limiting
the Presidents power to appoint the Justices of the Sandiganbayan.

1.9. She manipulated the shortlist of the JBC for the two (2) vacancies in the
Supreme Court, and failed to heed the pronouncements of the
Court in Aguinaldo v. Aquino, 13 thereby impairing and curtailing
the Presidents power to appoint the Justices of the Supreme Court.
1.10. She lied and made it appear that several justices requested that they do
away with voting for recommendees to the Supreme Court, when
in fact not one Justice requested for it.

1.11. She manipulated the JBC, especially its four (4) regular members,
effectively destroying the JBC as a constitutional body mandated
to fairly and impartially screen and nominate applicants to the
Judiciary.

2. RESPONDENT SERENO COMMITTED CORRUPTION WHEN -

2.1. She used public funds to finance her extravagant and lavish lifestyle by
ordering the purchase of a brand-new luxurious Toyota Land
Cruiser 2017 model as her personal vehicle, amounting to more than Five
Million Pesos.

2.2. She used public funds to stay in opulent hotels when attending
conferences in the Philippines and abroad, and flying on business
or first class together with her staff and security.

2.3. She used public funds to flaunt her extravagance by unnecessarily

bringing a huge entourage of lawyers in her supposed official
foreign trips.

3. RESPONDENT SERENO COMMITTED OTHER HIGH CRIMES WHEN -

3.1. She obstructed justice by ordering the Muntinlupa Judges not to issue
warrants of arrest against Senator Leila M. De Lima.

3.2. She perverted justice by meeting the Presiding Justice and Associate
Justices of the Court of Appeals and instructing them not to
comply with the processes of the House of Representatives and to
immediately question its processes before the Supreme Court.

3.3. She failed to report her extortionate attorneys fees and pay the
appropriate taxes therefor.

3.4. She embellished her Personal Data Sheet (PDS) in her application for the
Judiciary to overstate her credentials.
4. RESPONDENT SERENO BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST WHEN-

4.1. She hired an Information Technology consultant with an excessive

compensation without public bidding, in contravention of existing
laws, Commission on Audit (COA) rules, and public policy.

4.2. She sent a strongly-worded but misplaced reply to President Rodrigo Roa
Duterte on the Judges linked to drugs thereby inviting a head-on
collision between the Presidency and the Judiciary.

4.3. She prevented the Justices of the Court of Appeals to do a courtesy call on
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte.

4.4. She attacked the imposition of Martial Law in a commencement address,

while the validity of Martial Law was still pending before the
Supreme Court, and later continued to participate in the Courts
deliberations.

4.5. She issued a Joint Statement with the Presiding Justice of the Court of
Appeals regarding CA-GR SP No. 151029, which can very well be
elevated to the Supreme Court.

4.6. She practiced favoritism by allowing key positions in the Supreme Court
to remain unfilled for a long period of time in order to wait for her
staff to qualify, to the detriment of the service and great
demoralization of qualified Court employees.

4.7. She appointed a key official without authority or approval of the Court en
banc, in violation of Court-established rules and the Constitution.

4.8. She gave her newly-hired staff foreign travels and granted them travel
allowances for their foreign travels without authority or approval
of the Court en banc, in violation of Court-established rules and the
Constitution.

4.9. She usurped the mandate of the Court en banc by arrogating to herself
alone the running of the Supreme Court and the Judiciary, thereby
destroying the Supreme Court as a collegial body.
 THE PARTIES

Complainant Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon is of legal age, a taxpayer, Filipino, and

with address at No. 35, 7th Street, New Manila, Quezon City, Metro Manila, and may be
served with pleadings, notices, and legal processes thereto.

Respondent Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno is of legal age, Filipino, and with address
c/o Poblador Bautista & Reyes Law Offices, 5th Floor, SEDCCO I Building, 120 Rada
corner Legaspi Streets, Legaspi Village, Makati City, where she may be served with
summons and other legal processes issued by this Honorable Court.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 30, 2017, herein Complainant filed a Complaint for Impeachment

dated August 2, 2017 against Respondent.

On September 25, 2017, an Answer dated September 24, 2017 was filed by the
Respondent.

Accordingly, the complaint has been declared sufficient in form and substance by
the House committee on justice voting 30-4. The next step is to put it through another
round of votes to decide if there is probable cause.

Hearings would then be conducted after which a third of the House of 97

members should vote to transmit the complaint to the Senate which will sit as an
impeachment court.

DEFENSE OF THE RESPONDENT

Respondent, on the other hand, denied all allegations except that paragraph 2.1 is
admitted, with the qualification that the Chief Justice may be served with summons,
notices, pleadings and other papers at the address of undersigned counsel.

Tested under accepted legal principles, the instant Verified Complaint for
Impeachment should be dismissed. First, its allegations are totally false. Second, while it
conveniently uses the terms culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal of public trust, none of the acts it alleges
constitutes any ground for impeachment under the Constitution.

The charges alleged in the Complaint fall under eight broad categories: (1)
charges of falsification and usurpation of the Supreme Courts administrative power,
which actually are no more than administrative disputes over the correct interpretation of
Supreme Court circulars, including the internal processes; (2) supposed inaction on
petitions for retirement benefits which turn on the assessment of the system actually in
place for the processing of retirement claims; (3) issues regarding the proper
interpretation and implementation of the internal rules of the Judicial and Bar Council
(JBC) particularly the unanimity rule and the practice of clustering; (4) a supposedly
questionable procurement that was actually allowed under the rules of the Department of
Budget and Management (DBM), and approved by the Supreme Court En Banc; (5)
allegedly extravagant lifestyle, including foreign travels of staff which again arise from
disagreement on the proper interpretation of certain provisions of Supreme Court
circulars, including the Human Resource Manual; (6) supposed improper interference
with lower courts; (7) supposed disagreeable letters and speeches; and (8) an utterly
baseless charge of failure to disclose income on the Sworn Statement of Assets,
Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) and the Income Tax Return (ITR). Not one of
these charges constitutes a valid ground for impeachment. All of them are bereft of any
basis in fact and in law.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

A.) Whether or not Respondent Sereno committed culpable violation of the

Constitution;

B.) Whether or not Respondent Sereno committed corruption;

C.) Whether or not Respondent Sereno committed other high crimes;

D.) Whether or not Respondent Sereno betrayed public trust.

 DISCUSSION

First Issue: Respondent Sereno did not in any instances constitutes culpable
violation of Constitution.

The Impeachment Court may not proceed to trial on the basis of this Complaint
because it is constitutionally infirm and defective, for failure to comply with the
requirement of verification. Attention is called to the Verification of the Complaint
which states that each of the signatories read the contents thereof.

The Complainant alleges CJ Sereno of culpable violation of the Constitution as

enumerated above in paragraph 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, and 1.11
are utterly false. They are based on uninformed, if not malicious, guesswork based on
newspaper reports and obviously hearsay sources.

The truth of the matter is that CJ Sereno did not falsify any resolution,
temporary restraining order or issuance of Supreme Court. The Internal Rules of the
Supreme Court, which Complainant is apparently not aware of, provides that
resolutions of the Supreme Court En Banc are drafted based solely on the notes of the
Chief Justice on what transpired during confidential and executive deliberations. For
obvious reasons, the Chief Justice cannot falsify her own notes.

The remedy of a Justice who feels that the circulated draft does not reflect what
was agreed upon during the deliberations, is to object within the alloted period, and
not to claim that the Resolution as finalized, is a falsified one.

Also, CJ Sereno declared all the fees received in her income tax returns for
2004 to 2009, and she paid the corresponding taxes thereon. All assets and investments
bought or acquired from the remainder of these fees are truthfully reflected in her
SALNs.

CJ Sereno, as ex officio Chairperson of the JBC, acted in good faith and in

accordance with the JBC Rules in the matter of the nomination and subsequent
appointment to the Supreme Court of then Solicitor General Jardeleza. She did not lie
with respect to the recommendation of several Associate Justices of the Supreme Court
who had come to her in confidence to express their desire to do away with the practice
of naming recommendees to the Supreme Court, which practice in the first place
is not provided for in the Constitution.

In addition, she did not and could not manipulate the JBC. The JBC is
composed of high officers of the government and representatives of different sectors
who are appointed by the President. Its members are independent, highly educated and
accomplished individuals.

Complainant does not even allege any provision of the Constitution that the
Chief Justice has supposedly culpably violated. This is because there is none.

II. RESPONDENT SERENO DID NOT COMMIT CORRUPTION.

Corruption as a ground for impeachment refers to offenses defined by existing laws,
specially, R.A. No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices. Respondent Sereno
has not committed any of the corrupt practices defined under Section 3 of R.A. No.
3019, or under any existing law.

Certainly, Complainant does not allege that the Chief Justice persuaded a public
officer to violate the law, or that she allowed herself to commit such violation; or that
she received, requested any gift or benefit in exchange for official favors; or that she or
any member of her family accepted employment in any private enterprise which has
pending business with her office; or that she caused undue injury or gave unwarranted
benefits to any party in the discharge of her judicial functions. Complainant also does
not allege that the Chief Justice intentionally neglected to act on any matter pending
before her for the purpose of obtaining any pecuniary or material benefit or advantage;
or that she entered into any contract manifestly or grossly disadvantageous to the
government; or that she possessed some prohibited financial interest; or that she
knowingly granted any privilege or benefit in favor of an unqualified person; or that
she divulged valuable information of a confidential character to unauthorized persons.

There is absolutely neither allegation nor proof of corruption in the Complaint. That
said, the Chief Justice has squarely addressed the charges against her.

II.A. While complainant claims that the purchase of a Toyota Land Cruiser is an
extravagant expenditure using the definition found in COA Circular No. 2012-003
and pointed out that DBM A.O. No. 233 reiterates the prohibition on the acquisition
and use of luxury vehicles by government officials. To the contrary, the acquisition of
the Land Cruiser was neither illegal nor extravagant.

Under Section 3.1 of the DBM A.O. No. 233, a rule issued by the Executive
Department in 2008, long before the Chief Justice was appointed to the Supreme
Court, it expressly provides that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is exempted
from the prohibition. It states:
3.0 The following vehicles are not covered by this order:
3.1 Those used for security reasons and purposes for the President, Vice-
President, Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives and
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. xxx

In 2010, then Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya signed Budget Circular No. 2010-2,
which set the guidelines on the acquisition and use of government vehicles. Respondent
Serenos land cruiser, a sports utility vehicle, falls under one of the definitions that a
luxury vehicle as referring to any motor vehicle including a Sports Utility Vehicle
(SUV) with an engine displacement exceeding 2700cc if gasoline-fed or 3000cc if diesel-
fed, and with an engine exceeding 4 cylinders. However, such budget circular did not
repeal the exception as cited under Section 3.1 of the DBM A.O. No. 233. Section 2.2 of
same budget circular exempts the President, Vice-president, Senate President, House
Speaker and Supreme Court Chief Justice from the restrictions, given that the luxury cars
are used for security reasons and purposes.

Clearly, Respondent Sereno did not ask to be exempted from the prohibition against
the acquisition and use of luxury vehicles by government officials, as she was already
exempted by virtue of her position. In addition, land cruiser was purchased to ensure
the safety and security of Respondent Sereno, and not because she took a fancy at a
luxurious sports utility vehicle. Surely, protecting the highest magistrate of the land in
a security vehicle cannot be characterized as sheer extravagance. The Chief Justice
therefore cannot be accused of injudiciousness, lack of economy and impropriety
under these following reasons.

The House of Representatives can impeach the Chief Justice only upon the grounds
provided in the Constitution; and it can do so only on the basis of law and evidence. The
law is clear of the exemption, and in the absence of evidence that the Chief Justice has
abused this discretion; such purchase cannot be used as a ground to impeach her. It is
important to note that the acquisition of the Land Cruiser for the price of more than Five
Hundred Million was approved by the Supreme Court En Banc itself, in a Resolution
dated March 28, 2017 in A.M. No. 17-03-06-SC.

Hence, Respondent Sereno cannot be impeached for the purchase of the Land
Cruiser because even the endorser of this Complaint has publicly declared that
the acquisition was legally demandable. Being legally allowed, then the
purchase cannot constitute corruption, and if the purchase is neither corrupt
nor illegal, it cannot be impeachable.

The alleged extravagance and lavish lifestyle of Respondent Sereno billeting herself in
a P200,000.00-a-night room at a Presidential Villa during an international conference
in Boracay is hardly supported with evidence. Let alone that the Supreme Court En
Banc actually approved the proposed Php2.6 million budget for the 3 rd Meeting of the
ASEAN Chief Justices and the ASEAN Law Association (ALA) General Assembly to
be held in Shangri-Las Boracay Resort and Spa, Aklan from March 2-4, 2015 which
specifically included the all-day use of the Presidential Villa as a meeting area of the
ASEAN Chief Justices.

II.B. No fee, in addition to what had been paid for the Room Block of which the
Presidential Villa was already part of, was charged and paid for by the Supreme
Court when Sereno, her staff, and part of the event secretariat used the villa overnight
instead of booking additional rooms for it would have cost the Supreme Court more.

There is nothing corrupt about maximizing the use of a room, and saving
money for the Government in the process.

II.C. When the Chief Justice travels on business class, is not indicative of corruption
or an extravagant or lavish lifestyle.

Under Rule XII-A9, II.B.6.b of the Supreme Court Human Resource Manual, the
Chief Justice is expressly allowed to travel on full business class. The reason why
other justices dont is because the same manual prohibits them from doing so.
Respondent Sereno did not ask for the privilege. The Human Resource Manual was
approved by the Supreme Court En Banc through A.M. No. 00-6-1-SC dated January
31, 2013 before the Respondent Sereno assumed her position as Chief Justice.

Since travelling on business class is allowed, then doing so cannot constitute

corruption, and if travelling business class is neither corrupt nor prohibited, it
cannot be impeachable.

II.D. There is neither rule nor law which prohibits Respondent Sereno from bringing
her staff on foreign trips especially when given the nature and objective of the official
trip, such number of lawyers were necessary.

Again, there is nothing corrupt under these circumstances, and therefore nothing
impeachable.

Third Issue: Respondent Sereno did not commit other high crimes.

Fourth Issue: Respondent Sereno did not betray public trust.

To begin with, Complainant do not define betrayal of public trust as a ground

for impeachment. Betrayal of public trust in the impeachment of a responsible
constitutional officer is not a catch-all phrase to cover every misdeed committed. As a
ground for impeachment, betrayal of public trust must be at the same level of
committing treason and bribery or offenses that strike at the very heart of the life of the
nation. Betrayal of public trust should be limited to grave violations of the most
serious nature, lest impeachable officers fall prey to all sorts of frivolous charges.

Further, the nature of the office of constitutionally-tenured government

officials, like the Chief Justice, requires that they remain independent and insulated
from political pressures. The right to be removed only by impeachment is the
Constitutions strongest guarantee of security of tenure and independence. Otherwise,
impeachable officers will be vulnerable to scheming individuals concocting sham
impeachment charges to accomplish their selfish agendas.

Complainant demonstrate their lack of understanding of the concept of a

collegial body like the Supreme Court, where each member has a single vote. Whether
be the Chief Justice or the most junior associate, her vote is of equal weight with that
of the others.

The authority of the Chief Justice is like that of the Senate President with
respect to laws voted for approval. They both cast just one vote, equal to the vote of
every member of the body. The Chief Justice has no control over any Justice of the
Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court, either by division or en banc, is a
result of the deliberative process and voting among the Justices. Each Justice has the
prerogative to write and voice his separate or dissenting opinion. A concurrence of the
majority, however, is needed to decide any case.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, premise considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Verified

Complaint for Impeachment against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno be
DISMISSED for lack of sufficient grounds and for lack of probable cause.

Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Cebu City for Quezon City, Philippines. October 15, 2017.