SC justice to court spokesman: Don't misinform public

It's the Supreme Court spokesman's word against the first-hand accounts of two magistrates. Another Supreme Court justice has accused spokesman Jose Midas Marquez of misinforming the public by saying that the magistrates received copies of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez's petition before voting to suspend a congressional panel's impeachment proceedings against her last September. In a two-page, strongly-worded press statement, Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno said Marquez's account was not based on first-hand knowledge and that it was only Marquez who contradicted her account and that of Associate Justice Antonio Carpio. Sereno and Carpio had revealed that in the SC's en banc (full court) session last September 14, their colleagues — without having read Gutierrez's petition filed a day earlier — voted to issue a status quo ante order to prevent the House of Representatives' justice panel from hearing the two impeachment complaints against Gutierrez. The stay order was lifted in February this year. But Marquez, citing information given to him by Clerk of Court Enriquetta Vidal, said that the justices received copies of the petition before they ruled on it during the Sept. 14 en banc session. Sereno said the "problem" created by Marquez's contradiction of her and Carpio's narration of facts prompted her to issue a press statement. Independent news organization Newsbreak had the first crack on Sereno's statement. "When a Supreme Court official who has nothing to do with the distribution of case documents contradicts... narrations of facts based on personal knowledge made by two sitting justices in their judicial opinions, there is a serious problem. This statement has been necessitated precisely because of that problem. The public must not be misinformed,' said Sereno. Marquez, however, declined to comment on Sereno's statement. "With all due respect and in deference to Justice Sereno, may I be excused from further reacting? After all, I have already said everything there is to say regarding the issue," Marquez said in a text message to GMA News Online. Velasco's synopsis Sereno also said that even if a one-page synopsis of Gutierrez's petition was provided by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. on the morning of Sept. 14 , the Supreme Court justices should have still been given ample time to study Gutierrez's 60-page petition. "The basis of the objection of the justices was that the justices had the right and duty to read the petition in the context of what the petition was purportedly asking for—the issuance of a restraining order against the House of Representatives in the exercise of its power of impeachment," said Sereno. Velasco was supposedly assigned to handle Gutierrez's petition, but he later inhibited himself from the court proceedings because his son, Marinduque Rep. Lord Allan Velasco, is part of the House justice committee. No undue haste, no cover-up Last week, Newsbreak reported the alleged haste of SC justices in voting for the issuance of the stay order suspending the House justice panel's impeachment proceedings against the besieged Ombudsman. An SC delivery receipt furnished to Newsbreak would show that five justices received their copies of Gutierrez's petition only on Sept. 15, a day after the en banc session when the status quo ante order was issued. If based on the delivery receipt, it can be concluded that three of the five justices — Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Lucas Bersamin, and Jose Perez — voted to issue the stay order without having read the petition. But Marquez had earlier questioned the reliability of the delivery receipt. “It was indicated there that Justice Velasco received a copy of the petition on September 15. But when the petition was filed on September 13, it was immediately raffled and was assigned to Justice Velasco, who was even able to write his synopsis of the petition," said Marquez. — RSJ, GMA News