Friday, February 24, 2012
THE lawsuit row rigourously requested Friday the impeachment justice to entice Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno to strew light in her dissenting opinion, that they ponder as "another nail in the coffin" to secure the self-assurance of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
In a solicit for call in sealed by prosecutors Niel Tupas Jr. and Bayan Muna Representative Neri Colmenares, the lawsuit row requested the impeachment justice to situation an call in to Sereno to privately be present on February 29, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.
Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.
Sereno is asked to attest on her dissenting viewpoint in the Supreme Court's (SC) distribution of a proxy confining demand (TRO) on the watch-list demand released by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima against one-time President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel.
Article 7 of the impeachment censure against Corona alleges profanation of open certitude for his purported inclination in extenuation the TRO permitting the Arroyo couple to leave the country.
"The mentioned dissenting viewpoint forms segment of the acts of the Chief Justice mentioned in the be evidence of of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and the impeachment censure tentative before this Honorable Impeachment Court," the lawsuit stated.
"Like the unfamiliar banking deposition accounts, Sereno will be other nail in the coffin. But she's not unequivocally 100 percent indispensable to attest in the hearing but it would be improved if she would," Aurora Representative Juan Edgardo "Sonny" Angara, a of the spokespersons is to lawsuit panel, told reporters in a headlines briefing.
The solicit came after presiding executive Juan Ponce Enrile done a statute that De Lima's be evidence of should be regarded as "hearsay" since she has no personal ability on the en banc discussions of the court.
De Lima referred to the dissenting viewpoint of Sereno when she told the impeachment justice that the second condition of the TRO was not complied with.
The conditions of the TRO were is to Arroyo couple to post a 1) P2-million money bond, 2) designate a authorised deputy that would take court order of the court, and 3) surprise the embassy/consulate of their destination.
Since the SC has progressing released a fortitude laying down the stipulations with apply oneself to avowal of justice records, the lawsuit cannot solicit the impeachment justice to subpoena Associate Justice Sereno.
"Considering that her participation is by trait of an invitation, Justice Sereno has all the correct not to answer a subject that she believes is trusted or is not allowed beneath their rules," the lawsuit sharp out.
The invulnerability row mentioned in box Sereno wishes to stick to the call in of the impeachment court, she should initial secure the consent of the SC with a vote of a most of the en banc members, inclusive the Chief Justice.
In a law Monday, senator-judges will moreover confirm on the suit of Senator Antonio Trillanes IV to instead send created interrogatories to Sereno.
In box senator-judges authorize Trillanes's motion, both the lawsuit and invulnerability panels can inquire questions to Justice Sereno.
Meanwhile, in the eventuality that the impeachment justice invites Sereno to the trial, the lawsuit mentioned the SC cannot sanction a of its justices as beneath the Constitution, usually the House of Representatives has the solitary power to fortify impeachable officers.
"Obviously, it would be a very tough situation for her when she earnings to the SC...but the members of the justice cannot fortify themselves, usually Congress can fortify impeachable officers. In fact, they cannot even scrutinize themselves," Deputy Majority Leader Romero Frederico "Miro" Quimbo, moreover a orator is to prosecution, said.
In Sereno's dissenting opinion, she mentioned Court Administrator and SC orator Midas Marquez misinformed the open that the TRO was "in full force and effect" notwithstanding the preference of the most that the TRO is "suspended tentative compliance" of all the conditions.
"The Court did not rule in the 18 November 2011 Resolution that the TRO was 'in full force and effect,' nor that it was not suspended. To the contrary, the voting, in that a second most organisation prevailed, resulted in a preference to sojourn wordless on the matter, as it was 'common sense' anyway, and simple ability to all lawyers, that the non-fulfillment of a condition means that the TRO cannot be done use of," Sereno stated. (Kathrina Alvarez/Sunnex)
No comments:
Post a Comment