(Eagle News) – Supreme Court chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno who started her “indefinite leave” today, Thursday, March 1, clarified again that she had not resigned and will not resign.
“This indefinite leave is not a resignation. I will devote my time in the preparation of my senate defense and work on the cases in my docket,” she said in a statement read by her spokesperson, Atty. Jojo Lacanilao in a presscon.
Lacanilao also explained he and another Sereno spokesperson’s insistence before — that Sereno’s “wellness leave” and “indefinite leave” had long been scheduled by the Chief Justice — was done without any malice.
He said he didn’t know that there were developments going on at the time at the Supreme Court and that Sereno’s “indefinite leave” was actually a consensus agreed upon by the Court’s 13 justices in deliberations last Tuesday.
Lacanilao had claimed before that Sereno’s “wellness leave” was just advanced so she can prepare for the Senate impeachment trial.
For her part, Sereno reasoned out that she had to “qualify my leave according to the provisions of rule 7 section 6C of the internal rules of the Supreme Court” regarding wellness leave which was dated January 23, 3018.
“I requested yesterday in writing the rescheduling of my wellness leave in view of my re-study of the rules. It is unfortunate that my plan of making use of an already approved wellness leave in relation to an indefinte leave was inaccurately conveyed for which I apologize,” she said in a statement.
On Thursday, March 1, the start of Sereno’s indefinite leave, 13 of the Supreme Court justices, in a statement, said the explanations and media releases of Sereno’s spokespersons about the Chief Justice’s “indefinite leave” only caused “confusion” that had “seriously damaged the integrity of judiciary in general, and the Supreme Court in particular.”
-“No malice”
Lacanilao said that when they issued their statements, they were relying on the information that they had at the time. He claimed that they were not aware of what happened in the high court’s deliberations.
“There was no malice on anyone of us to confuse or obfuscate what were developing events at the Supreme Court,” Sereno’s spokesperson said.
Early today, Supreme Court public information office chief, Atty. Theodore Te, read a “press statement” of the high court to put on record the reason behind Sereno’s indefinite leave.
It turned out that it was not a personal decision of the Chief Justice but was arrived at a consensus during the tribunal’s deliberation wherein 14 Supreme Court justices were present, including Sereno.
“After extended deliberations last Tuesday, February 27, 2018, thirteen of the Justices present arrived at a consensus that the Chief Justice should take an indefinite leave. Several reasons were mentioned by the various justices,” the SC press statement read.
“After consulting with the two most senior justices, the Chief Justice herself announced that she was taking an indefinite leave, with the amendment that she start the leave on Thursday, March 1, 2018,” it said.
The SC statement said that Sereno “did not request the rescheduling of her wellness leave.”
On Tuesday, lawyers of Sereno had been issuing statements and granting interviews claiming that the Chief Justice was just going to take a “wellness leave” that will start on March 1 and last until March 15. Lacanilao, in fact, claimed that this was just a scheduled wellness leave that had just been advanced.
The following day, Lacanilao and another Sereno spokesperson, Atty. Joselee Deinla, held a press conference claiming that Sereno was going on an indefinite leave to prepare for the Senate impeachment trial.
This, according to the Supreme Court, led to confusion and was a “modification” of what the real facts were.
“The Court en banc regrets the confusion that the announcements and media releases of the spokespersons of the Chief Justice have caused which seriously damaged the integrity of judiciary in general, and the Supreme Court in particular,” its statement said.
“In the ordinary course of events, the Court expected the Chief Justice to cause the announcement only of what was really agreed upon without any modification or embellishment. This matter shall be dealt with in a separate proceeding,” it added.
(Eagle News Service)
