Carpio: No offense attributable to the reasons cited to remove Judge Leonen

MANILA – Retired Supreme Court Deputy Justice Antonio Carpio has come out in defense of Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, saying that no challenge offense was cited on the grounds raised in the impeachment offer filed against him in the House of Representatives.

Ilocos journalist Edwin Cordevilla, assisted by lawyer Lorenzo Gadon, filed an impeachment complaint against Leonen on Monday, accusing him of a culpable violation of the Constitution by allegedly delaying the resolution of pending cases in the Supreme Court and the Electoral Court of the House. of Representatives (HRET).

He also claimed that Leonen betrayed the public trust by allegedly failing to file his Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) statement when he taught at the University of the Philippines for more than 15 years.

The impeachment demand was supported by the deputy of the second district of Ilocos Norte, Angelo Barba, cousin of Senator Imee Marcos and former Senator Bongbong Marcos, whose electoral protest against Vice President Leni Robredo is still pending in the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, where find the magistrates of the SC.

Leonen is the member in charge of the case.

In his column Thursday for the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Carpio refuted each of the motives raised in the offer of impeachment against Leonen.

On Cordevilla’s claim that Leonen violated the Constitution by failing to resolve 37 cases in 24 months, Carpio said that the 24-month period in Section 15 (1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution is only a “directive” , not a requirement.

“Although the 24-month period provided for in the 1987 Constitution is persuasive, it does not summarily bind this Court to the resolution of the cases that are presented to it. It is a mere directive to ensure the prompt resolution of cases by this Court, and should not be interpreted as an inflexible norm, “said Carpio, citing the Supreme Court ruling in the administrative complaint filed against the former Supreme Court president. Teresita Leonardo de Castro.

“Enforcing the 24-month rule on a mandatory basis would result in the impeachment of more than the majority of the Supreme Court justices,” he added, noting that when he retired in October 2019, there were only 5 justices who had zero delays.

Carpio said that Philippine Supreme Court justices issue about 66 full decisions a year on average, 7 times the annual average for each Supreme Court justice in the United States, with about 9 full decisions per year.

“In my personal opinion, a judge who on average writes more than 66 full-blown decisions per year can start to be reckless with his research on the facts and the law. In addition to researching and writing his own decisions, a judge has to study the decisions of other judges because he has to agree or disagree with the decisions of other judges. The law cannot be construed as requiring a person to be reckless, especially when the person is mandated to make a final judgment on others, ”he said.

The retired magistrate also dismissed the alleged “arbitrary delay” in the resolution of the cases assigned to Leonen as president of the HRET since his appointment in October 2019.

Cordevilla’s own complaint said 3 cases were assigned to Leonen, 2 of which had been resolved. Only 1 remains pending, which Carpio pointed out, which does not involve Deputy Marikina Stella Quimbo, as the complaint states.

“HRET’s rules do not prescribe time periods within which its members must decide the cases assigned to them. Given that Congress still has more than 18 months left in his current term, and given that there is no time frame to decide HRET cases, it cannot be said that Judge Leonen, who has been HRET President for little longer year, arbitrarily delayed the decision of your only pending case. The other HRET members also have to decide all the cases assigned to them, ”he explained.

Carpio also addressed the issue of Leonen’s alleged failure to present his SALN while teaching at the University of the Philippines.

“[E]even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Judge Leonen did not present his SALN while teaching at the University of the Philippines, any such offense has already prescribed, ”he said, referring to the 2018 Melita del Rosario case. People of the Philippines, where the SC established the prescriptive period for not presenting SALN in 8 years.

According to the indictment, Leonen allegedly did not file SALN from 1989 to 2003 and from 2008 to 2009, but this was only based on a column in The Manila Times by Rigoberto Tiglao.

Gadon admitted at a news conference Monday that they expect the House to cite official documents to back up their claim.

Carpio noted that more than 10 years have passed since Leonen left the UP.

Citing article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, he said that any criminal responsibility had already been totally extinguished by prescription of the crime.

“A prescribed offense not prosecuted with a ‘fully extinguished’ criminal responsibility cannot nullify the constitutional presumption of innocence and therefore can never rise to the level of a chargeable offense,” he said.

Although Carpio dissented in the May 2018 quo warranto decision that overthrew Supreme Court President Maria Lourdes Sereno arguing that a quo warranto petition is not the appropriate remedy to remove a sitting SC judge, he voted with the majority by declaring that Sereno violated the Constitution due to its breach. to present SALN.

Carpio based this on certifications from the University of the Philippines that some of Sereno’s SALNs were not on file, which the Attorney General’s Office submitted to the higher court.

Carpio said this established prima facie evidence that Sereno failed to submit his SALNs, which shifted the burden to Sereno.

“[Sereno] it conveniently claims that it religiously submitted its SALNs without presenting any evidence to prove such allegation. Suffice it to say that mere accusation is not evidence. This means that the prima facie evidence establishing the defendant’s repeated failure to present the SALN remains without contradiction and, therefore, the defendant can be held liable for her repeated failure to present the SALN while working as a teacher. from the UP Law School ”, said the retired magistrate. said.

“In light of her previous failure to present her SALN for several years while she was a professor at the UP Law School, the fact of not presenting her SALN upon assuming office in 2010 as Associate Judge of this Court constitutes a guilty violation of the Constitution, a violation committed while she was already serving as an accused officer, “he added.

INCOMPETENCE WITHOUT TAXABLE OFFENSE

Leonen’s impeachment lawsuit will be addressed by the House Justice committee next year, his vice president, Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, told the ANC’s Matters of Fact on Thursday.

Rodríguez said that any impeachment complaint will be treated as a priority, but that they will analyze the form and substance of the complaint before proceeding to hear it.

He declined to comment on the merits of the impeachment lawsuit, but when asked whether “incompetence” is one of the reasons for removing a Supreme Court judge through impeachment, he said it was not, according to the Constitution.

“The competition is not, but it could be. The Supreme Court has already decided what is the meaning of the betrayal of public trust, broadens the scope of the grounds for impeachment, “he said.

“As defined by the Supreme Court, it is not something criminal, but because of its impact on public service it rises to a level of constitutional violation of public trust,” he added.

Rodríguez promised to investigate the complaint and give Leonen the opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Former Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te agreed with Rodriguez, telling the ANC’s Dateline Philippines that impeachment should only be reserved for the most serious crimes.

“[T]The reasons for impeachment under the Constitution are quite clear and from what I have heard, the alleged incompetence, as indicated in the complaint, does not fall within those grounds, “he said.

According to the Constitution, a demand for impeachment can only be filed on the basis of 6 grounds:

• guilty violation of the Constitution
• treason
• bribery
• corruption and corruption
• other serious crimes
• betrayal of public trust

Cordevilla invokes the incompetence in the delay in the resolution of cases as a culpable violation of the Constitution.

But he told you that this charge could also apply to other magistrates.

“The accusations do not specifically refer to a specific person. It involves a whole system of doing things. And therefore, he is questioning the entire court for the handling of the cases, “he said, and explained that the Supreme Court, as a collegiate body, functions as a single body and each judge has one vote.

“If the House justice committee proceeds with this, they are not saying that therefore only one should be charged. It’s basically the whole court. And I don’t think that’s where the committee should go. “

He warned that if the House justice committee goes ahead with hearing the complaint, it could lead to an abuse of an accountability mechanism.

“One of the ways it can be abused is if there really is no ground and if it is allowed to continue. It is up to the House of Representatives to say, to educate us, if a complaint based on the reasons given is enough to move forward, “he said.

“Because if the House stands firm and says no, this shouldn’t continue, this is not a rationale and there’s no basis for us to go further, then it sends a very strong and clear message that impeachment really should be left to the most serious crimes contemplated in the Constitution and, therefore, there are reasons that are specified and if it is not within those reasons, then do not present. Because it actually weakens the institutions for accountability, ”he added.

NO A QUO WARRANTO

Following Gadon’s admission that a quo warranto petition could be filed against Leonen, Rodríguez said the House would insist on its jurisdiction over the cases of accused officials.

But for Te, the route quo warranto is dead.

He noted that there was an attempt by Gadon and the Attorney General’s Office to request SALN from Leonen, but this was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court.

“For legal purposes, that avenue is gone, that avenue is closed. And that is probably the reason why we no longer hear the Attorney General talk about it and this time, it is a complaint of impeachment, “he concluded.

[BOLD] RELATED VIDEO