Next House target: Supreme Court justice

MANILA, Philippines -  The House committee on justice has set a hearing on the impeachment complaint filed against Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, a senior congressman disclosed yesterday.

Del Castillo was accused of plagiarism by 10 lawmakers and a group of “comfort women” or sex slaves of Japanese soldiers during World War II.

Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas, vice chairman of the justice committee, said the panel would schedule in its next hearing the impeachment complaint filed last Dec. 14 by six “comfort women” against Del Castillo for betrayal of public trust when he allegedly committed plagiarism in writing the High Court’s decision on the victims’ case.

“I was asking how come we have not heard of what happened to that impeachment complaint? So it was referred to the committee, and we will schedule a hearing to first determine whether the complaint is sufficient in form,” Fariñas told The STAR.

This developed as the House minority bloc expressed suspicion that Malacañang could be behind efforts to oust SC justices who have been issuing rulings unfavorable to the Aquino administration.

Fariñas had earlier said that he would file his own impeachment complaint against eight SC justices for voting in favor of the status quo ante order in September last year to stop the justice committee’s impeachment proceedings against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

Del Castillo was earlier accused of plagiarism in penning the ruling of the Vinuya v. Romulo case in which the SC rejected the petition of at least 70 comfort women to compel the Philippine government to seek an explicit apology and reparations from Japan.

Lawyers Harry Roque and Romel Bagares, who represented the complainants, were also the ones who represented the comfort women in the case.

The lawyers claimed that Del Castillo plagiarized at least three sources – an article published in 2009 in the Yale Law Journal of International Law, another piece published in 2006 in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, and a book published by the Cambridge University Press in 2005.

The SC, following an investigation by its ethics committee, dismissed last October for lack of merit the charges hurled by the two lawyers against Del Castillo.

The SC said what happened was Del Castillo’s researcher just made “a case of bad footnoting.”

Opposition lawmakers said they are alarmed by apparent attempts by Malacañang to replace the SC justices through impeachment.

They said agencies like the Office of the Ombudsman and the Commission on Audit and other constitutional agencies have been targeted by the administration.

Prior to assuming office last year, President Aquino did not hide his dislike for Chief Justice Renato Corona for being a “midnight appointee” of former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

“Remarks by some of our colleagues here in Congress that they are readying the impeachment of the magistrates of the Court are not just unwelcome, but also show arrogance against a co-equal branch in government,” Zambales Rep. Milagros Magsaysay said in news briefing.

House Minority Leader and Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said there is no clear indication yet that Malacañang is behind efforts to impeach SC justices but “sometime in the coming days you will see it.”

SC spokesman and court administrator Midas Marquez said that there appears to be a concerted effort to destroy the SC.

Fariñas denied that there is a move to destroy the SC.

Mrs. Arroyo’s former lawyer Romulo Macalintal said the plan of Rep. Fariñas to file impeachment complaints against the SC justices for issuing the status quo ante order in favor of Gutierrez is baseless.

“The allegation that the status quo ante order in the Gutierrez case was issued without some justices having read her petition is not a ground to impeach any of the SC justices. Such act does not constitute betrayal of public trust nor any of the grounds for impeachment,” he said in a statement.

He supported the explanation of SC spokesman Marquez that the status quo ante order cannot be used as basis for filing of impeachment complaint against any of the justices on any of four grounds specified in the Constitution – culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery and graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust.

Marquez had argued that the justices were in fact performing the tasks entrusted to them by the people in acting on the petition of Gutierrez and issuing the status quo ante order “based on jurisprudence and their own philosophies and biases.”

The SC official stressed that the objection of Rep. Fariñas, a lawyer who placed eighth in the 1978 Bar examinations, to the decision of the court cannot be considered a ground for impeachment of the justices.

Macalintal agreed. He believes there was nothing wrong if some of the justices were not able to read the petition in full when they voted on the status quo ante order.

“In issuing a TRO or status quo ante order, SC justices are not expected to have the luxury of time to peruse or make an in-depth study of the petition and annexes but can just rely on ‘allegations in support of the TRO or status quo ante order,’ which is part of the petition and which is usually contained in 3 to 5 pages only,” he explained.

Marquez has revealed that the justices deliberated during their full court session on Sept. 14 on the case despite insinuations that three of them (Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Lucas Bersamin and Jose Perez) purportedly voted for the issuance of status quo ante order without first reading the entire petition of the Ombudsman.

He said Velasco received copy of the petition on Sept. 13, the same day the petition was filed, since the case was raffled off to him.

Velasco even distributed synopsis to the justices with his summary of issues and recommendation for issuance of a TRO during their session the next day. With Edu Punay