THE Judicial and Bar Council’s (JBC) Executive Committee (ExeCom) committed “grave injustice” for deeming Maria Lourdes Sereno qualified to become chief justice even if she did not submit all of her yearly statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).

Supreme Court Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro and Diosdado Peralta made the statement after JBC Executive Director Annaliza Capacite testified during the hearing on the impeachment complaint against Sereno, that the chief justice only submitted a letter to the JBC ExeCom that she would not be able to submit all her SALNs from 1986 to 2006.

HUSH, HUSH Supreme Court Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro speaks to court administrator Jose Midas Marquez during the resumption of the hearing on the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno on Monday. PHOTO BY RUY L. MARTINEZ

Sereno, professor of the UP College of Law during that period, wrote that she could not locate the SALNs anymore.

Capacite also disclosed that Sereno had assured the JBC ExeCom in her letter that copies of her SALN could be obtained at the UP Diliman human resources office.

Get the latest news
delivered to your inbox
Sign up for The Manila Times newsletters
By signing up with an email address, I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

De Castro argued that Sereno got preferential treatment because one of the requirements for candidates for chief justice was the submission of all SALNs.

Also required was a waiver on confidentiality on local and foreign currency bank accounts, considering that the vacancy at that time was due to the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona, who was convicted because of his failure to disclose all of his assets in his SALNs.

“The announcement [for applicants] was clear. Those who will submit incomplete requirements will not be interviewed and considered for the nomination. Then why was it that the JBC allowed the inclusion of then Associate Justice Sereno among the applicants to be interviewed? This is a grave injustice committed to all, not only against us applicants for the chief justice post,” said de Castro.

Justice Peralta, for his part, took offense that he was not informed by the JBC ExeCom—a panel composed of individuals not appointed by the President—about Sereno’s non submission of SALNs.

“I was not aware of this issue with the SALN, your honors. Had I been informed, I would have objected to it (Sereno’s inclusion in list of applicants). I wasn’t given appropriate information. The JBC ExeCom did not do its job,” Peralta said.

President Benigno Aquino 3rd appointed Sereno chief justice in August 2012. Sereno beat her senior colleagues in the high court, namely Associate Justices de Castro, Roberto Abad, Arturo Brion and Antonio Carpio.

In a statement, Sereno’s camp maintained that the chief justice complied with all the requirements of the JBC.

Lawyer Jojo Lacanilao, one of Sereno’s spokesmen, noted that the chief justice submitted her SALNs for years 2009, 2010 and 2011.

“It is clear to us that Justice Peralta wants to wash his hands clean of how Chief Justice Sereno was included in the JBC shortlist and he knows it. It would be tough to believe that he was unaware, considering that he even signed the correspondence sent to Malacañang,” Lacanilao said.

Lacanilao claimed Peralta was getting even because his wife, Court of Appeals Associate Justice Audrey Peralta, was excluded from the shortlist of nominees for Court of Appeals presiding justice that was submitted by the JBC to President Rodrigo Duterte last year.

Lacanilao said Peralta’s wife submitted documentary requirements beyond the deadline.

“Justice Peralta should have some delicadeza (prudence) in not allowing personal disappointments to color his testimonies before the Justice Committee,” Lacanilao said.

Peralta denied Lacanilao’s claim.

“I have raised this issue not because of my wife, but because I want to protect the future applicants in the judiciary. If they can do this (giving preferential treatment) to a sitting member of the judiciary, then imagine what would they do to other applicants?” he said.