MANILA (UPDATED) - Anti-crime watchdogs and a lawyer on Wednesday filed impeachment complaints against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno for supposed culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal of public trust.

In their complaint filed before the House of Representatives, the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) and Vanguard of the Philippine Constitution (VCPI) accused Sereno of releasing administrative orders without the approval of the Supreme Court en banc.

These include the creation of a new judiciary decentralized office and the re-opening of the Regional Court Administrative Office in Western Visayas, according to the complaint.

They also accused 57-year-old Sereno of approving the allegedly irregular appointment of several officials, and using SC funds for the travel allowances of her staff.



Sereno also failed to fill the year-long vacancies for a deputy clerk of court, a chief attorney and 2 assistant court administrators, the complainants said.

The Chief Justice has not received a copy of the complaint, Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te said.

The raps against Sereno however will not be considered as a verified impeachment complaint pending the endorsement of a congressman, according to the House Secretary General.

Sereno's predecessor, Renato Corona, was impeached and ousted in 2012 on allegations he misdeclared his wealth.

Lawyer Lorenzo Gadon, the other complainant, meanwhile said he met with congressmen he refused to name and gave them copies of his complaint and the attached documentary evidence.

Pressed for more details, Gadon said, “Marami-rami rin sila nag-closed door meeting kami, mga 5 sila."

"Sinabi lang sa akin kung matatapos ang pirmahan, baka next week," he said. "Kanina kasi, di nila maharap. May hearing kanina tungkol doon kay (BIR) Commissioner (Nicanor) Faeldon, hindi agad nila naharap, hindi nila agad nakita.”

Gadon claimed that the congressmen he met are looking at having the signatures of some 10 to 20 congressmen when it is filed.

He also said he met with House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez earlier but declined to give details. Alvarez previously expressed interest in impeaching Sereno.

VACC chair Dante Jimenez, on the other hand, said lawmakers should look at the merits of their complaint. "Let us give them the benefit of the doubt. Whether they endorse it or not, I don't care but of course look at it on the merits.”

Former Commission on Human Rights Commissioner Eligio Mallari, one of the co-complainants of VACC, said he expects "an endorsement from a minimum of 1/3 of the House of Representatives."

Their legal counsel, Manuelito Luna, said they have enough proof to substantiate their allegations.

The Gadon complaint alleges that Sereno failed to truthfully disclose her statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth or SALN—the same allegation that got Corona ousted from office.

He also accused Sereno of alleged falsification of Supreme Court documents; delayed action on the petitions for retirement benefits of justices, judges and the surviving spouses of deceased justices and judges; alleged manipulation and delay in a resolution on the request of the Secretary of Justice to transfer the Maute cases outside of Mindanao; alleged manipulation of the shortlist of the Judicial and Bar Council; among others.

Gadon also accused Sereno of corruption over alleged use of public funds by ordering the purchase of a new vehicle amounting to more than P5 million; alleged use of public funds to stay in hotels when attending local and foreign conferences; flying on business or first class with her staff and security; and bringing a huge entourage of lawyers in her official foreign trips.

Among the incidents he cited for other high crimes include alleged obstruction of justice by ordering Muntinlupa judges not to issue warrants of arrest against Senator Leila M. De Lima; alleged failure to report her attorney’s fees and pay the appropriate taxes; alleged embellishment of her personal data sheet. - with reports from Robert Mano and RG Cruz, ABS-CBN News</s>THE head of a federalism movement allied with the Duterte administration has revealed that two congressmen have agreed to endorse an impeachment complaint prepared against Supreme Court Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno. Lawyer Larry Gadon, president of the PDU30 Constitutional Reform to Federalism and a senatorial candidate in the 2016 national elections, said the impeachment complaint, one of the many allegedly being readied against Sereno, will cite the same impeachable ground that caused the removal of then SC Chief Justice Renato Corona. In a news forum in Quezon City, Gadon, who also acted as one of the legal advisers to former president and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, revealed the impeachment complaint would be filed within two weeks. “All grounds for her impeachment are based on documents, many of them taken from her office,” Gadon said. He said the ground for impeachment is betrayal of public trust. One of the issues raised against Sereno is her alleged failure to include in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth the huge income she received in connection with the multi-billion peso Piatco case. “This is the same accusation that Chief Justice Corona was found guilty of by the Senate impeachment court,” said Gadon. Gadon also cited alleged irregularities in the High Court’s purchase of a 2017 Toyota Land Cruiser SUV last February at a cost of P5,110,500.00.According to him, the Toyota website placed the cost of such vehicle somewhere from P4.4 million to P4.8 million. Gadon claimed two members of the House of Representatives have agreed to endorse the complaint. Saying he was ready to face SC’s wrath in retaliation for his actions, Gadon said Sereno should also explain the “unwarranted delay” in the resolution of various court petitions filed by Arroyo whom he described as a victim of political persecution under the previous government administration. Among the legal issues raised by Arroyo were Sandiganbayan rulings rejecting her appeal for grant of bail, review of plunder information filed by the Ombudsman and the demurrer to the evidence. After the change of national leadership last year, the High Court issued a decision that cleared Arroyo of plunder charges filed during the Aquino administration and freed her after nearly five years of detention. “How many cases filed by the GMA camp did the SC sat on?” Gadon asked. He also lamented the decision of the High Court to transfer the hearings of suspected Maute terrorists in Cagayan de Oro City, saying the venue could be dangerous to government prosecutors and witnesses due to its proximity from suspected lairs of the terror group.</s>AN impeachment complaint has been filed against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno at the House of Representatives on Wednesday</s>(UPDATED) The complaint is jointly submitted by the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption and the Vanguard of the Philippine Constitution, but it has not yet been endorsed by a lawmaker

MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – Will another Supreme Court (SC) chief justice be impeached?

A group whose founder and president is a staunch supporter of President Rodrigo Duterte on Wednesday, August 2, led the submission of an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno to the House of Representatives.

The complaint, however, has not yet been endorsed by any lawmaker. For an impeachment complaint to be considered officially filed, it must get a lawmaker's endorsement.

The Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) and the Vanguard of the Philippine Constitution, Incorporated (VPCI) on Wednesday said Sereno should be impeached on the following grounds:
• Culpable violation of the Constitution "for 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 authority from the court en banc"
• Culpably violating the constitutional provision that "appointive government officials shall not hold another public post as provided for by law, in appointing Atty Solomon Lumba as her Staff Head II"
• Culpably violated the Constitution "for appointing Atty Brenda Jay Mendoza as Philippine Mediation Center Office chief by mere memorandum which was not referred to the court en banc for its consideration"
• Culpably violated the Constitution "for granting to members of her staff travel allowances for foreign travel charged to the Supreme Court funds without court en banc approval"
• Betrayal of public trust "through inexcusable negligence, for sitting on the applications for the posts of Supreme Court Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Attorney which have been vacant for 3 years and 8 months and the two positions for Assistant Court Administrator which have been vacant for 4 years and 6 months"

The VACC was represented by founding chairman and president Dante Jimenez, a Duterte supporter and in-kind campaign contributor. Vanguard, meanwhile, was represented by its president, Eligio Mallari.

"We have enough proof to substantiate all the allegations. The best evidence came from the court itself," said VACC lawyer Manuelito Luna.

A second impeachment complaint from lawyer Larry Gadon, who once represented former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo before the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in 2015, was also supposed to be filed on Wednesday.

Gadon has not filed his complaint against Sereno yet, but said on Wednesday that he spoke to lawmakers about it. He refused to identify those lawmakers.

The president, the vice president, members of the SC, members of constitutional commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office via impeachment.

Impeachable offenses include culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, and betrayal of public trust.

If an impeachment complaint gets an endorsement from a legislator, it will then be referred to the House Speaker. He is expected to include it in the House's order of business.

It is then referred to the House committee on justice, which determines if the complaint is sufficient in form and substance, and if there is probable cause to pursue it. A majority vote of justice committee members will be needed to decide there is probable cause.

The committee will then issue a formal resolution to the House plenary. If there is probable cause, the Articles of Impeachment are also submitted via resolution. The complaint will be endorsed to the Senate once it gets a go-signal from at least one-third of House members.

It's the Senate which will try and decide all cases of impeachment via trial. A two-thirds vote from senators is needed to convict an impeachable official.

In May 2012, the Senate found then Chief Justice Renato Corona guilty of betraying public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution.

During Corona's impeachment, both chambers of Congress were dominated by allies of then President Benigno Aquino III. The administration then was accused of railroading the impeachment and bribing legislators for the vote.

The Senate and the House are now dominated by legislators who are members of or are allied with Duterte's Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban). – Rappler.com</s>SUPPORTERS of President Rodrigo Duterte called on the House of Representative to support their impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC), led by Dante Jimenez; lawyer Eligio Mallari of Vanguard of the Philippine Constitution; and lawyer Larry Gadon made the call as they seek to file two separate impeachment complaints against Sereno.

Sereno is accused of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution for allegedly granting allowances and other perks to herself and her staff in foreign trips abroad; preventing lower court justices from issuing warrants of arrest against Senator Leila de Lima on drug related charges; and acquiring a P9 million bulletproof luxury car, among others.

“I believe in the strength of the complaint because the witnesses of her impeachable offenses are the Supreme Court justices themselves,” Jacinto Paras, who serves as one of the legal counsels of VACC, said on Wednesday.

An impeachment complaint cannot be considered verified, meaning filed before the House of Representatives, without an endorser from the ranks of the House.

VACC and the rest of those seeking Sereno’s impeachment have yet to find endorsers for their impeachment complaints.

Jimenez, however, downplayed the role of an endorser.

“Yes, having an endorser is part of the process, but still, isn’t it enough that we are taking courage against the Chief Justice? Whether we get an endorsement or not, I don’t care,” Jimenez said.

Jimenez, however, quickly made a turnaround and admitted that an endorsement was necessary for their impeachment complaint to prosper.

“Of course, we expect the lawmakers to take a look on the merits of this case and make the necessary endorsement,” Jimenez added.</s>President Trump's Signing Statement makes clear he regards sanctions law as unconstitutional and will challenge it in the Supreme Court rather than have his veto overridden and risk impeachment by trying to veto it.Yesterday I wrote an article for The Duran in which I expressed the view that the Presidential Statement published in connection with US President Trump's signing of the new sanctions law passed against his wishes by the US Congress clearly pointed to an intention to bring a future challenge against the sanctions law to the US Supreme Court.The person known as Simon has pointed out on the thread of this article that, and not only details where the President's lawyers - which in this case means the White House's Legal Counsel and the Department of Justice - think the sanctions law falls into outright illegality, but makes the intention to bring a challenge to the US Supreme Court crystal clear.That is also my view and I enclose the full text of the Signing Statement in order to explain the pointThat this document is drafted by lawyers is obvious from the careful use of legal citations. The key words are the ones I have highlighted and they make the President's legal strategy - or rather the strategy of his lawyers - completely clear.Briefly, the President says that the review periods set out in the law relating to the lifting of sanctions are unconstitutional. However the President says he "nevertheless expects to honour" this unconstitutional procedure set out in the law out of respect for Congress.HoweverNo one should be in any doubt that in such a situation the President will exercise his right to make his challenge to the US Supreme Court, and on the strength of the legal citations that are carefully set out in the Signing Statement he appears to have an overwhelmingly strong case and can be confident that the US Supreme Court will set the offending provisions aside.This is a legally and politically astute strategy.Not only would his veto in that case have been overridden but there is a strongly likelihood in that case that articles of impeachment would have been brought forward.Whilst the President would have been doing nothing more than exercise his constitutional right if he had sought to veto the law, impeachment is decided purely by Congress and it is Congress alone which decides whether the grounds for impeachment have been made out. The courts have no say in the matter.With the President totally isolated in Congress, the US's main international adversary, on an issue of fundamental importance to the US. On those grounds they would say that he should be impeached and removed from office.Since the Constitution does not say what a "high crime or misdemeanour" is and leaves the definition entirely to Congress, it is not impossible that in the present hysterical atmosphere the President's constitutional use of his veto to block an unconstitutional sanctions law could be successfully misdefined in that way, and that Congress would accept this mis-definition and would vote for impeachment on that basis.Perhaps enough Republicans in Congress would rally to the President to prevent impeachment taking place, but with Congress practically unanimous in supporting the sanctions law it would be foolish to count on it.As to those who say that it is inconceivable that a Republican dominated Congress would impeach a Republican President, to my mind that overlooks the fact that if Trump ever were impeachedthan Donald Trump is.Indeed the more I think about this bizarre sanctions law the more I wonder whether the impeachment scenario I have just outlined may have been the very scenario that it was intended to engineer.In other words the sanctions law may have been put together by the President's opponents in Congress - who include Republicans as well as Democrats - with the actualof provoking him into vetoing it so as to set up the conditions for his impeachment by Congress on an issue where Congress is united against him.If so then the President - heeding the advice of his lawyers - has sidestepped the trap whilst putting himself in a strong position to challenge the law in the US Supreme Court when the right moment comes.
Two impeachment complaints are filed in the lower house of the Philippine Congress against Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.