GRKE ©. lint = Toon all GRIGINAL 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. Xesen = VERIFIED ANSWER Respondent Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, by counsel, respectfully states:' Prefatory Statement The power of impeachment is in essence judicial power, and the Constitution vests this power in Congress as an exception to the monopoly of judicial power that is accorded to the Judiciary.? The exercise of the power of impeachment is sometimes referred to as “political justice.” 1 On 15 September 2017, the Chief Justice received a Notice to Answer and a copy of the Verified Complaint for Impeachment. This Verified Answer is thus seasonably filed within 1 days from receipt, or on 25 September 2017, purcuant to Section 5, Rule Il of the Rules of Procedure in impeachient Proceedings of the Housc of Representatives, 17 Congress (‘Rules on Impeachment") 2 JOAQUIN G. BERNAS S.J., THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TIE PIRUIPPIKES: A ‘Conarer, (2000 ed), at 1149 Td.Impeachment as an act of “political justice,” however, does not mean that it is an entirely political process. It is a “politico-judicial proceeding,"—“a proceeding of mixed political and judicial functions in all its steps; a judicial proceeding by the political representatives of the people to bring political offenders to political justice." “Political justice,” in the Philippine context involves the interplay of two concepts. The first is that Congress is a political department of Government. The second is that while it may be so, it must in the exercise of “political justice,” act with justice. To do justice or to see that justice is done is essentially to act conformably with the law and the facts. It is te do what is right, which may not necessarily be what political leadership dictates. Hence, the House of Representatives can impeach the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court only upon grounds provided in the Constitution; and it can do so only on the basis of law and evidence. The House of Representatives abuses that power by exercising it without sufficient legal and factual basis. By doing so, it would in effect place a co-equal branch at its mercy and imperil the very existence of our democratic form of government—a government which rests on the principle of independence and equality of the three great branches of Government. The Complaint should be dismissed, not only because the charges it alleges are totally false, but also because they do not constitute the grounds for impeachment under the Constitution, The Constitution provides. for six grounds for impeachment. These are ‘culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes or betrayal of public trust.”"§ These grounds share a common characteristic: they are severe grounds, of such gravity that they undermine the life and operations of Government. The grounds for impeachment do not include trivial causes. Nor do they include acts done in good faith, It is said that “the power of impeachment ought to be, like 4 Levi Hubbell, TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENT OF LEVI HUBBELL, JUDGZ OF THE SECOND JUDICEAL ‘CIRCUMT, BY THE SENATE OF THE Stats oF Wisconsmy, (1853), at p. 655 51935 Constitution, art. IX, sec. 1Goliath's sword, kept in the temple, and not used but on great occasions.”6 “Nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give [impeachment] speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can.”7 “Treason,” “bribery” and “graft and corruption” require no explanation. ‘They are defined in our penal laws.® On the other hand, “culpable violation of the Constitution,” “other high crimes,” and “betrayal of public trust” are broad concepts. However, they are not catch-all provisions for inconsequential causes. “Culpable violation of the Constitution” is the willful and intentional violation of the Constitution. It implies deliberate intent and a degree of perversity. Hence, it does not include violations committed unintentionally, or involuntarily, or in good faith through honest mistake.? “Other high crimes” are acts which may not necessarily constitute crimes but are of “such seriousness as to justify the belief that there was a grave violation of the trust reposed on the official.”!9 To dispel any notion that other “high crimes” could be any possible grounds that Congress may consider, it is well understood that “high crimes” can refer only to those offenses, which like treason and bribery are of such 6 Frank ©. Bowman Ill and Stephen L. Sepinucle, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors: Defining the Constitutional Limits on Preeldsatial impetchment, 72 Cale L, REV. 1517 (1999), quoting Lord Chancellor Somers, 5 New PaRLIAMENT HisrorY 678 (1691), available at 7 Barbara Charline Jordan, “Statement on the Articles of Impeachment’, delivered on 25 July 1974 before the House Judiciary Committee, quoting Woodrow Wilson, available at http: / forww. americantheterie.com/ speeches /barvarajordanjudieiarystatement.htm * See Record of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Volume Il, at p. 276, in rel. to Article 114 and Articles 210-212 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (Act No. S515, a0 emsendedl ond the ANIL GreR and Corrupt Practices Act Gepubtc Art. No, ® Record of the 1985 Constitutional Commiasion, Volume Il, at p. 278, citing Femande, PHLPME CONSMTUMON, Report ofthe General Cotati oF, the Impeachment of President Quirino, Volume IV, Congressional Records, House of Representatives, 1553. See also, JOAQUIN G. BERNAS Sw, THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE. (OF THE PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY, (2009 edi), at 1152. © Record of the 1986 Constitutional Commfasion, Volume I, at p. 278, citing Enrique M. Fernando, PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, at 460-461“enormous gravity that they strike at the very life or orderly working of the government.”!! Finally, the broad concept of betrayal of public trust” introduced in the 1987 Constitution relates to an officer’s violation of his oath of office.!? The Supreme Court, citing deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, has acknowledged that the “catch-all phrase” may refer “to all acts not punishable by statutes as penal offenses but, nonetheless, render the officer unfit to continue in office.”!* However, to avoid abuse and arbitrary exercise by the legislature in the invocation of this ground,” the Supreme Court has made it clear that the term “betrayal of public trust” cannot apply where the public officer had acted in good faith or with error of judgment.’ To constitute an impeachable ground of betrayal of public trust, the acts of the Chief Justice must be of such “enormous gravity” like “other high crimes.” This is a necessary conclusion that is drawn not only from rules of construction as they apply to the Constitution, but from the principles underlying our form of government. If the grounds for impeaching the Chief Justice can be trivialized to include any ground which Congress may consider fit, the fate of the Judiciary would be subjected to the whims of Congress, The Judiciary would remain co-equal with Congress only if Congress allowed it to be so. This would seriously undermine the very existence of the government ordained under the 1987 Constitution which all Members of this Honorable House have sworn to uphold—a government which depends on the independence and equality of its three great branches. Tested under these accepted legal principles, the instant Verified Complaint for Impeachment (the “Complaint) 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 ™ Record of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Volume II at p. 278, citing the Report of the Generel Committee on the Impeachment of President Quirino, Volume TV, Congressional Records, House of Representatives, 1553. See also, JOAQUIN G, BERNAS ‘S.J., THE 1987 ConsTiTuTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY, [2009 1152-1153 JOAQUIN G, BERNAS S.J., ae 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: A ‘Commearanr, (2009 ed, Ts Gonealeav- Olfice ofthe President, O.R. 196231, 4 Septemaber 2012 “ih“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 Court’s administrative power, which actually are no more than administrative disputes over the correct interpretation of Supreme Court circulars, including the Supreme Court Human Resource Manual,'* or observance of 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 in 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. The outrageousness of Complainant’s claim that the Chief Justice is unfit to remain in office is underscored by the fact that, together, the Supreme Court and the rest of the Judiciary have achieved so much under the Chief Justice’s leadership. First, various transparency and integrity measures have been institutionalized to restore the belief of the public in the Judiciary. The Supreme Court website is now compliant with the requirements of the Transparency Seal, exhibiting copies of newly decided cases and rules of procedure. Financial documents, procurement contracts, podcasts, and live #8 A.M. No, 00-6+1-SC, approved on 31 January 2012streaming during the Court's oral arguments are now readily available for viewing by the general public. Through the Chief Justice’s annual Ulat ng Hudikatura, the developments in the Judiciary’s reform agenda are likewise being publicized. Consultation sessions among justice sector stakeholders, including judges, court personnel, prosecutors and public attorneys, and members of the bar, on key judicial reform initiatives, are also being conducted. The Supreme Court has chalked up record numbers of disciplinary measures imposed on judges, court personnel and lawyers. For the first time in the Judiciary’s known history, an appellate court-level Justice was removed from office. Second, initiatives were taken to ensure rational, predictable, speedy, and appropriate judicial actions. Several new initiatives to increase legal aid for the poor have begun, with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (“IBP’), law schools, and law students. Small claims cases can now be filed at very little cost to litigants for money claims of not more than Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php200,000.00), with lawyers’ appearance barred, with litigants able to use template affidavits for their claims, and with the case processed by ‘courts in as little as 2 to 3 months, especially because the judge is required to render a decision within 24 hours after the hearing. This will be very beneficial to wage earners, small businesses, and Overseas Filipino Workers. Continuous trials for criminal cases will now be conducted nationwide, and this means that dilatory motions are prohibited, trial dates are set one day apart and strict compliance with all deadlines are monitored. This system can replicate outstanding results on a national scale, such as a recent human trafficking case that was finished in as little as 5 months from filing to conviction. To address the increasing inflow of drug cases, the Supreme Court added 240 more drug courts nationwide. Measures to address detainee conditions were also implemented, such as the Guidelines on Jail Decongestion which established local Task Forces Katarungan and Kalayaan, side by side with other measures of the Philippine National Police (“PNP’), such as the development of a detainee’s notebook, the use of e-notices and the eSubpoena. Before the Chief Justice assumed leadership, Republic Act (“R.A.”) No. 8369 or the Family Courts Act, had not been implemented. Regular courts were given additionalassignments as family courts. Now, the Supreme Court has provided the budget for 48 Family Courts in the National Capital Judicial Region and in Regions 3 and 4, and the nomination and appointment process for judges in these courts have begun. The Rules on Financial Rehabilitation as well as on Insolvency have also been issued, to pave the way for the full implementation of the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act of 2010, a milestone in addressing investor sector concerns. Two case decongestion programs have beef administered in the first and second level courts since 2013. Hustisyeah!, which was launched in 2013, has significantly reduced the dockets of the 175 heavily congested courts participating in the said program. As of August 2017, of the 51,825 priority cases targeted for disposition and action, 61.86% or 32,060 cases were actually disposed of. Grounded. on this success, the Chief Justice successfully facilitated the grant to the Supreme Court of additional budget for the hiring of 635 contractual specially-trained court decongestion officers for trial courts which carry 54% of the total caseload in the trial courts nationwide. These 635 decongestion officers have already been fully deployed this year. The Supreme Court itself increased its own productivity, from 4,676 cases disposed of in 2011, to 6,247 in 2016. Third, on the belief that judges and their staff can effectively function only if the systems, processes, and infrastructure that make up the work environment enable them to perform their duties well, the Chief Justice pushed for the updating of the Enterprise Information Systems Plan (EISP”) and the implementation of the e¢-Courts and automated hearing projects. EISP systematizes and automates the raffling, processing and management of cases, and other administrative processes such as financial, human and material resource management. In various levels of implementation are the Enterprise Resource Planning System, Judiciary Email, Legal Resource Management System, eLearning for the Philippine Judicial Academy (“PHILJA”), Lawyer Information System, and Judiciary Portal. The enterprise-level hard infrastructure that will back up the EISP, such as the Manila main data center and the Angeles City disaster recovery data center, as well as Phase 1 of the Judiciary Connectivity Project are already operational. ‘The total current budget for the EISP is Php4.5 billion.A key component of the EISP—the eCourts—includes eFiling, cRafiling, eNotification, and ePayment features. As of August 2017, eCourts has been deployed to 274 courts while 24 courts are undergoing training ahead of deployment. Out of the 274 courts where the eCourts has been deployed, 159 are already conducting automated hearings, where the courts immediately issue their orders after the hearing, saving at least a month per trial incident because the orders need no longer be mailed to reach the litigants. This 21st century Judiciary vision will pave the way for a modern, efficient and transparent court system, which will secure court records against disasters like Typhoon Yolanda which destroyed almost all the court records in Tacloban City (which now has eCourts). This will benefit litigants and their lawyers in the future, who can access their records online reducing litigation costs. ‘The hard infrastructure of the Judiciary has also been prioritized under the leadership of the Chief Justice. The professional warehousing of case records will begin this year to ensure the proper storage of court records and preserve their integrity. From 2012 to 2017, the following infrastructure projects have been completed: (a) rehabilitation of 56 Halls of Justice (HOJ"); and {(b) construction of 2 HOJs in coordination with local government units. There are also several projects under implementation, while 55 are under procurement. It was also under the Chief Justice’s leadership that the Supreme Court finally acquired its own titled lot and future building, to rise in a 2.1-hectare land in Fort Bonifacio, Global City which will serve as the site of the New Supreme Court Complex. The Judiciary’s own budget for the Court of Appeals Halls for the Visayas and Mindanao has also been increased by Congress. In the area of management and administration, at the core is the Chief Justice’s ability to mobilize reform on several fronts at various stages of implementation. She has been conducting various management meetings with key members and officials of the Judiciary; streamlining court processes; establishing accounts reconciliation mechanisms to ensure uniform and modern financial processes and accounting procedures for the entire Judiciary; shepherding the release oftrial courts’ maintenance and other operating expenses to address long-standing logistical issues; establishing asset ement standards, and inventory and disposal system. The Chief Justice has helped to improve the entire Judiciary’s budgeting system through the conduct of Annual Planning, Programming and Budgeting Workshops; and has ushered in the efficient utilization of the Judiciary Development Fund through the Revised Implementing Guidelines. Finally, with the aim of conducting a holistic and responsive approach in addressing organizational and development issues, the Supreme Court professionalized the selection, promotion and evaluation of Judiciary employees by implementing a performance-based evaluation, rewards, discipline and promotions system, inclading the approval of the Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of a Strategic Performance Management System in the Judiciary. Many court officials and personnel have benefited from more local and foreign training. The speed and amounts at which benefits have been given to all court employees have vastly improved: nationwide use of the ATM for payroll and benefits since 2013, same-time release of all benefits for all Supreme Court and lower court employees to address fairness concerns, and decreasing the gap between the benefits of employees in lower versus higher court levels. The reforms of course, needed to start with an improved evaluation and nomination system for judges by the JBC. The JBC has improved all its assessment tools, reached out for inputs by stakeholders such as the practicing bar, opened to the public its interviews for high-level positions, and streamlined and computerized most of its processes so that it broke all records by processing 5,907 applications during the first deliberation; 6,799 applications during the second deliberation; and 6,261 during the final JBC En Banc deliberation in 2016. These statistics show a significant increase from the number of applications processed by the JBC in 2011, ie. 2,969 applications during the first deliberation; 2,542 during the second deliberation; and 2,349 during the final JBC En Banc deliberation. Improved consultation and goals-targeting mechanisms have also been established to rationalize the requirements for admission and maintenance of good standing in the bar such as the bar examinations, Mandatory Continuing Legal20 Education (MCLE), IBP membership and other requirements, as well as the discipline of lawyers; these, with the IBP and other legal aid organizations, Legal Education Board, the Philippine Association of Law Schools together with the PHILJA and the MCLE Office. The PHILJA is also revitalizing its programs with the view to a significantly overhauled program for judicial and court personnel training and education. It is also worth mentioning that the Justice Sector Coordinating Council (‘JSCC") was revitalized in 2014. As presently functioning, the Judiciary coordinates with the two other pillars of the criminal justice system, namely the Department of Justice (“DOJ") and its attached agencies, as well as the Department of Interior and Local Government (‘DILG") and its attached agencies such as the PNP and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (“BUMP”) while respecting the independence of each office. Under the concept of the “Justice Zone,” an overall framework guides a strategy map for every locality that is developed as a “Justice Zone.” This mechanism has given rise to the eSubpoena, information. sharing, resource mapping, detainees’ notebooks, drawing of data baselines and eventually performance targets. The mechanism should usher in overall sector-wide improvement of the criminal justice system, and in line with this, the Chief Justice has succeeded in pushing for a sector-wide Justice chapter under the Philippine Development Plan (Ambisyon Natin 2040). The Chief Justice has also been successfully leading the agencies that are by the Constitution fiscally autonomous—the CFAG's—into gaining greater and more effective fiscal independence. These, among others, are some of the ground-breaking reforms which the Supreme Court has spearheaded and/or implemented under the leadership of the Chief Justice since she assumed office in 2012. ¥ “CRAG” stands for “Constitutional Fiscally Autonomous Agencies of Government’, consisting of the Judiciary, the Commission on Audit, the Commisaion on Elections, the Givil Service Commission, the Office of the Ombudeman, and the Commission on Human Rights.u ‘The Chief Justice prays that the legislators administer true political justice, with due regard, not only to the facts and applicable 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. The Chief Justice urges the Committee to make the proper judgment, and dismiss the Complaint for lack of sufficient grounds and probable cause. A ADMISSIONS/ DENIALS 1, Paragraphs 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.7 are not statements of ultimate facts, but are conclusions of law culled from various secondary sources, or personal opinions of the Complainant, as to which the Chief Justice makes no admissions or denials. 2. Paragraph 1.5, insofar as it alleges that the Chief Justice “failed the psychological examination administered by the JBC, and that under existing JBC policy, “an applicant to any position in the judiciary with a grade of four (4) is unfit for the job,” is DENIED for being false. There is no such provision whatsoever in JBC-009, or the Rules of the JBC in effect when the Chief Justice applied for a position in the Judi Moreover, under JBC No. 2016-01, or the Revised Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council (“JBC Rules”) presently in force, the results of the psychological examination of an applicant are to be used solely by the Council “for evaluation purposes only.”"” 2.1. Under the JBC Rules, the results of these examinations are strictly confidential, and are used solely by the JBC for evaluation purposes. The Chief Justice has likewise not consented to the release of her evaluation results to Complainant or any third party. Any copy in their hands is one obtained in violation of the JBC Rules, doctor-patient privilege, and/or the Chief Justice's right to privacy. 2.2. The Chief Justice’s evaluation results are likewise irrelevant to these proceedings as they do not constitute any of the acts alleged in the Complaint as 7 Sco. 3, Rule 6, JBC No. 2016-01grounds for impeachment, Even if true, a “4” in the alleged evaluation is not an offense, let alone an impeachable one. 2.3. An impeachment case cannot be used to reopen a nomination list submitted by the JBC or the appointment by the President from such list to any position in the Judiciary. 3. Paragraph 1.6, insofar as it alleges that the Chief Justice “fired the two (2) psychiatrists who gave her a poor grade by ordering the non-renewal of their contracts” is DENIED for being false and baseless. The truth is that the psychiatrists were under short-term consultancy contracts, which contracts were no longer renewed by the JBC after the expiration of their respective terms. The decision not to renew said contracts was arrived at by the JBC as a collegial body after a thorough review of the methodology, performance, qualifications, and relevant training of said individuals. 3.1. Paragraph 1.6, insofar as it alleges that the Chief Justice “flies into a rage every time the issue of psychiatric testing comes up during deliberations in the JBC,” is likewise DENIED for being false, baseless, and for being hearsay. This allegation is not based on personal knowledge of the Complainant, but merely on ‘unsubstantiated and false news reports." 4. Paragraph 2 is DENIED for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of said averment. §. 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. 6. Paragraphs 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, and 7,9 insofar as these accuse the Chief Justice of committing several acts 4 Par. 1.6 references an article by a certain Mr. Jomar Canlas, available atwhich supposedly amount to: (a) culpable violation of the Constitution; (b) corruption; (c) other high crimes; and (d) betrayal of public trust, and which supposedly rendered her “unfit to be and continue as Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines” [sic], are all DENIED for being false, baseless and/or erroneous legal conclusions, and for the reasons to be discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below. 7. Paragraphs 3. 4.1, 4.1.1, 4. 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5 and 4.1.6 are DENIED for being false, baseless, and hearsay. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the Chief Justice did not “falsify” any Resolution of the Supreme Court in A.M. No. 12-11-9-SC. The Resohition was duly circulated and approved by the Court En Bane, and has never been specifically recalled or revoked. 8. Paragraphs 3.1.2, 4.2, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, and 4.2.4 are DENIED for being false, baseless, and hearsay. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses of this Verified Answer, the Chief Justice did not “falsify” any Temporary Restraining Order (*TRO”) in G.R No. 206844-45. She merely exercised her power to act, according to her sound discretion, on a recommendation from a Member of the Supreme Court who is in charge of reporting the case to the Court (Member-in-Charge). The Chief Justice simply did not fully adopt the recommended draft order submitted to her for approval. Accordingly, the Chief Justice cannot possibly “falsify”, “tamper with” or “alter” a TRO issued under her own. authority. 9. Paragraphs 3.1.3, 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, and 4.3.5 are DENIED for being false, baseless, and hearsay. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses of this Verified Answer, the Chief Justice did not “falsify” any Resolution of the Supreme Court in A.M. No. 16-08-04-SC, A draft with a “directive” to the Executive Secretary to submit complaint-affidavits was duly circulated, adopted, and voted on by the Supreme Court En Banc. However, upon further discussion and revision by the Members of the Supreme Court, the final and signed version of the Resolution converted the “directive” to the Executive Secretary into an “invitation” to the PNP Director General and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (*PDEA’) Director General.10. Paragraphs 3.1.4, 4.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, 4.4.6, and 4.4.7 are DENIED for being baseless and false. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses of this Verified Answer, the Chief Justice did not “delay” action on the resolution of applications for retirement benefits of Justices and Judges, or on survivorship petitions filed by surviving spouses of deceased Justices and Judges. The Chief Justice herself has no power to act unilaterally on these petitions. As part of the administrative reforms of the Court, applications for retirement benefits are now referred to the Special Committee on Retirement and Civil Service Benefits to help ensure judiciary-wide consistency of rules and grants. Where necessary, as when an application has issues, further study is undertaken by the Committee and/or its Technical Working Groups ("TWG"). Upon endorsement of the Committee, the applications are submitted to the Supreme Court En Banc for approval. 11. Paragraphs 3.1.5, 4.5, 4.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3, 4.5.4, 4.5.5, 4.5.6, 4.5.7, 4.5.8, 4.5.9, 4.5.10 and 4.5.11 are DENIED for being false and for being based on hearsay. Contrary to Complainant's hearsay allegations, and as further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the Chief Justice did not “manipulate” or “delay” the resolution of A.M. No. 17-06-02-SC. In view of security concerns, the Chief Justice had to coordinate the matter not only with the Supreme Court En Banc, but also with the Secretary of Justice, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (“AFP”), and the PNP, Contrary to Complainant’s allegation, the Chief Justice is the Member-in-Charge for this administrative matter, and not Associate Justice Noel Tijam. 12. Paragraphs 3.1.6, 3.3.2, 4.6, 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3, 4.6.4, 6.3, 6.3.1, 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 are DENIED for being utterly false, baseless and based on hearsay. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses of this Verified Answer, this charge does not risc te an impeachable offense as it pertains to supposed acts done by the Chief Justice prior to joining the Judiciary in 2010. In any event, the Chief Justice included in her SALN as of 2010 the remainder of the fees she had received for services rendered as legal counsel for the Republic of the Philippines between 2003 to 2008, in two international arbitration cases: {a) PIATCO v. Republic of the Philippines and MIAA; and (b) Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (collectively, the “PIATCO Cases”). She has paid all applicable taxes on herlegal fees. She has also truthfully disclosed in her SALN alll her assets, liabilities, and net worth, 13. Paragraphs 3.1.7, 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4, 4.7.5, 4.7.6, 4.7.7, 4.7.8 and 4.7.9 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the Chief Justice, as ex officio Chairperson of the JBC, acted in accordance with the then prevailing JBC Rules (JBC-009) and in good faith when she voted to exclude then Solicitor General Francis H. Jardeleza from the shortlist of appointees to the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice had genuine concerns, at the time, about the integrity of then Solicitor General Jardeleza based, among others, on information from Senior Associate Justice Antonio T, Carpio. 14. Paragraphs 3.1.8, 4.8, 4.8.1, 4.8.2, 4.8.3, 4.8.4, and 4.8.5 and 4.8.6 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the Chief Justice did not “manipulate” the shortlist of the JBC for the six (6) vacancies in the Sandiganbayan. The practice of “clustering” nominees, which the JBC members agreed on, is based on their good faith understanding of the Constitution which does not prohibit the said practice. On the contrary, the practice is consistent with the express provisions of the Constitution. 15. Paragraphs 3.1.9, 4.9, 4.9.1, 4.9.2, 4.9.3, and 4.9.4 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the JBC {and the Chief Justice) did not “cluster” the nominees for the two vacancies brought about by the retirement of Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Jose C. Mendoza. Bach vacancy, which took place more than a month apart from each other, had a separate and distinct set of applicants and nominees. 16. Paragraphs 3.1.10, 4.10, 4.10.1, 4.10.2, 4.10.3, 4.10.4, 4.10.5, 4.10.6, 4.10.7 and 4.10.8 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses of this Verified Answer, the Chief Justice did not lie when she stated that there were several Associate Justices of the Supreme Court who requested that the JBC no longer obtain the Supreme Court's recommendees to vacancies in the Judiciary. She didnet name them (when asked) because she understood that these Associate Justices had come to her in confidence. 17. Paragraphs 3.1.11, 4.11, 4.11.1, 4.11.2, 4.11.3, 4.11.4, 4.11.5, 4.11.6, 4.11.7, 4.11.8, and 4.11.9 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the JBC Rules actually mandates that final voting be done only after the JBC members “shall have extensively discussed and meticulously deliberated on the qualifications and fitness of the applicants.” The Chief Justice has shared her views and opinions on the qualifications of different applicants to the Judiciary. However, she has never “manipulated” any member of the JBC, whose members are independent thinkers. The JBC has always acted as a collegial body. 18. Paragraphs 3.2.1, 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.6, 5.1.7, 5.1.8, 5.1.9 and 5.1.10 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the acquisition of the Toyota Land Cruiser (2017) model was neither an illegal nor an “extravagant” use of public funds. 19. Paragraphs 3.2.2, 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the Chief Justice does not have an “extravagant and lavish lifestyle.” The Presidential Villa was booked and actually used in relation to the 2015 ASEAN Chief Justices Meeting, that is, it was used as the venue for the “Boracay Accord” signing, photo-op of the ASEAN Chief Justices, and side meetings between Chief Justices in the ASEAN. There was no additional cost to the Supreme Court for the Chief Justice’s use of the Presidential Villa as her sleeping quarters. On the other hand, the Supreme Court Human Resource Manual {approved by the Supreme Court En Banc) allows the Chief Justice to travel on “business class.” Therefore, said travels cannot be indicative of corruption or an “extravagant or lavish lifestyle.” 20. Paragraphs 3.2.3, 5.3, 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 are DENIED for being false, baseless, hearsay, and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the Chief Justice does not bring a “huge entourage of lawyers” during her foreign trips.v7 21. Paragraphs 3.3.1, 6.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the Chief Justice never ordered any judge not to issue warrants of arrest against Senator Leila M. De Lima. Notably, Senator De Lima was arrested and is currently detained. 22. Paragraphs 3.3.2, 6.2, 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 are DENIED for being false, baseless, hearsay, and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses. below, the Chief Justice did not “instruct” the Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals not to comply with processes of the House of Representatives. Neither did she instruct them to immediately question those Processes before the Supreme Court. She did not even meet with these Court of Appeals Justices on this matter. 23. Paragraphs 3.3.4, 6.4, 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.4.3, 6.4.4, 6.4.5 and 6.4.6 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the Chief Justice did not “embellish” her Personal Data Sheet (“PDS”) in applying for the Judiciary “to overstate her credentials.” 24. Paragraphs 3.4.1, 7.1, 7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.14, 7.1.5, 7.1.6, 7.1.7, 7.1.8, 7.1.9, 7.1.10 and 7.1.11 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the hiring by the Supreme Court of the Information and Communications Technology (“ICT*) Consultant was done in accordance with the Government Procurement Reform Act” and her compensation was not “excessive.” 25. Paragraphs 3.4.2, 7.2, 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.2.4 and 7.2.5 are DENIED for being false, baseless. and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the Chief Justice’s 8 August 2016 letter to the President did not amount to a “betrayal of public trust.” The 8 August 2016 letter demonstrated the Chief Justice’s genuine concern for the welfare of all members of the Judiciary (inchuding those accused of involvement in illegal drugs), and her willingness, through the Supreme Court’s power of RA. No. 918418 administrative supervision over lower courts, to cooperate and work with the President in his campaign against illegal drugs. The 8 August 2016 letter was meant to reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the Judiciary. 26. Paragraphs 3.4.3, 7.3, 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, in reminding Justices of the Court of Appeals about the Canon of “Independence,” the Chief Justice did not “betray public trust.” She was reinforcing judicial ethics. 27. Paragraphs 3.4.4, 7.4, 7.4.1, 7.4.2, 7.4.3, 7.4.4, 7.4.5 and 7.4.6 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the Chief Justice did not “attack the imposition of Martial Law” in her commencement address at the Ateneo De Manila University (‘ADMU”). On the contrary, she expressly and repeatedly recognized the President's power under the Constitution to declare Martial Law. Moreover, at the time of her speech, the imposition of Martial Law had not yet been questioned before the Supreme Court. 28. Paragraphe 3.4.5, 7.5, 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 and 7.5.4 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. As further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the Chief Justice did not “betray public trust” when she, together with then Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., signed a “Joint Statement” on the HOR’s “show cause orders” against the three Court of Appeals Justices in CA-G.R. SP No, 151029. The “Joint Statement” simply suggested that the HOR pursue its legal remedies against the Court of Appeals’ release orders in CA-G.R. SP No. 151029, 29. Paragraphs 3.4.6, 7.6, 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3 and 7.6.4 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. This matter is subject of A.M. No. 17-07-05-SC which is presently pending before the Supreme Court En Banc. The Supreme Court En Bane should be allowed to resolve this internal administrative Court matter. Moreover, as further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the issue in filling up certain vacancies in the Supreme Court was occasioned by the need to develop and implement a holistic reorganization plan for the entire Judiciary.19 30. Paragraphs 3.4.7, 7.7, 7.7.1, 7.7.2, 7.7.3, 7.7.4 and 7.7.5 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. This matter is subject of A.M. No. 17-07-05-SC which is presently pending before the Supreme Court En Banc. The Supreme Court En Bane should be allowed to resolve this internal administrative Court matter. Moreover, as further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the appointment of the Chief of Office of the Philippine Mediation Center Office (“PMCO”) was in accordance with applicable rules. 31. Paragraphs 3.4.8, 7.8, 7.8.1, 7.8.2 and 7.8.3 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. This. matter is also subject of A.M. No. 17-07-05-SC which is presently pending before the Supreme Court En Banc. The Supreme Court En Bane should be allowed to resolve this internal administrative Court matter. Moreover, as further discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, foreign travels (and related travel expenses) of court personnel do not have to be approved by the Supreme Court En Bane. 32. Paragraphs 3.4.9, 7.9, 7.9.1, 7.9.2, 7.9.3 and 7.9.4 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. Contrary to Complainant’s assertions, the Chief Justice has in fact zealously maintained (and will continue to maintain) the independence of the Judiciary as the third branch of Government. 33. Paragraphs 8, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 are DENIED for being false, baseless and/or conclusory. As discussed in the Affirmative Allegations and Defenses below, the Chief Justice did not commit the charges levelled against her in the Complaint. B. AFFIRMATIVE ALLEGATIONS AND DEFENSES. i THE CHIEF JUSTICE DID NOT COMMIT ANY CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION,34. 20 Complainant alleges that the Chief Justice committed “culpable violations of the Constitution,” when she supposedly: ) (2) 8) 4) (5) (6) (7) (8) @) (10) falsified the Resolution of the Supreme Court in A.M. No, 12-11-9-SC;” falsified the TRO of the Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 206844-45;7 falsified the Resolution of the Supreme Court in A.M. No, 16-08-04-SC;* delayed action on the numerous Petitions for Retirement Benefits of Justices and Judges, and the survivi spouses of deceased Justices and Judges; manipulated and thereafter delayed the resolution of AM. 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; failed to truthfully disclose her assets, liabilities and net worth in her SALN;* manipulated the shortlist of the JBC to exclude then Solicitor General Jardeleza, for personal and political reasons, thereby disgracing him and curtailing the President’s power to appoint him;”” manipulated the shortlist of the JBC for six (6) vacancies in the Sandiganbayan, for personal and political reasons, thereby limiting the President's power to appoint ‘the Justices of the Sandiganbayan; manipulated the shortlist of the JBC for two (2) vacancies in the Supreme Court, and failed to heed the pronouncements of the Court in Aguinaldo vs, Aquino, thereby impairing and curtailing the President’s power to appoint the Justices of the Supreme Court;” lied and made it appear that “several justices” requested that they do away with voting for 3 Complaint, par. 3.1 et seq. BAL 2d, par.2 recommendees to the Supreme Court, when in fact not one Justice requested for it;” and (11) 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.! 35. None of these charges rises to the level of a “culpable violation of the Constitution,” simply because the “facts” alleged by the Complainant are utterly false. They are based on uninformed, if not malicious, guesswork based on newspaper reports and obviously hearsay sources. The Chief Justice did not “falsify” = any resolution, temporary restraining order or issuance of the Supreme Court. 35.1, As will be explained in detail below, the Chief Justice did not “falsify” any resolution, TRO, or issuance of the Supreme Court. The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (“SC Internal Rules’), 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 (there is no secretary inside the room) on what transpired during confidential and executive deliberations. For obvious reasons, the Chief Justice cannot “falsify” her own notes. And poor note- taking, even assuming that was the case (this is strongly denied), certainly does not amount to a “culpable violation of the Constitution.” 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 allotted period, and not to claim that the Resolution as finalized, is a falsified one. The Chief Justice did not “falsify” the TRO in G.R. Nos. 206844-45. 2° Complaint, par. 3.1.10 Yd, par. 3.1.11