Leonen impeachment case: Attempt to reprise Sereno ouster fails

MORE THAN five months after its initial filing, the impeachment case against Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen collapsed in total failure last May 27. By a unanimous and multi-partisan vote of 44-0, the lower chamber’s committee on justice junked the impeachment complaint filed by one Edwin Cordevilla, secretary general of an obscure group called Filipino League of Advocates for Good Government.

Using the same playbook which removed Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno from her office in 2018, the impeachment complaint alleged Leonen’s failure to file statements of assets and liabilities and net worth (SALN) when he was teaching at the University of the Philippines College of Law, among other charges. Discussions during the committee hearings revolved around the “sufficiency in form and substance” of the case. Lawmakers described the allegations as hearsay, pointing to a lack of authenticated records. The House panel also said that Cordevilla had “no personal knowledge” of the alleged violation and relied only on newspaper accounts and op-ed pieces in filing his complaint.

Media provided context to the case; pointing out who were behind it. News accounts identified Rep. Angelo Marcos Barba (2nd Dist., Ilocos Norte), a cousin of former Sen. Bongbong Marcos as having backed the case and Larry Gadon, another Marcos loyalist, as the lawyer of the complainant. Media also recalled that Leonen penned the SC ruling on Marcos’ electoral protest against Vice President Leni Robredo confirming Marcos’ loss.

Philstar.com and Rappler recalled more details from the Sereno impeachment. Rappler called attention to the “stark contrast” between the proceedings of the impeachment cases against President Rodrigo Duterte in 2017 and that of Sereno in 2018. The case against Duterte was quickly junked on the basis of insufficiency of substance, while Sereno’s case dragged on for months resulting in her removal from office. Philstar.com highlighted the fact that the Sereno ruling stemmed from a quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida, who argued against the basis of her appointment. In a separate report, Philstar.com noted that Calida asked the Supreme Court and later the UP Board of Regents for Leonen’s SALN. The report added that Calida and Marcos, in separate but similar motions, moved and failed to exclude Leonen from involvement in the resolution of Marcos’ electoral protest.

Meanwhile, commentary in the op-ed pages discussed the absurdity of Congress’ even spending time on the issue. The May 26 editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer asked why the House voted “overwhelmingly” to tackle Leonen’s impeachment with urgency in the midst of “life-and-death issues” such as the pandemic and the rehabilitation of Marawi,  the siege of which was commemorated on May 23rd. Calling it a “nuisance complaint” in her Vera Files column, Tita Valderrama said that, “It should not even have reached that stage, wasting legislative time and resources.” Referring to the case as a “pesky distraction” in his column for The Philippine Star, Satur Ocampo said that with its dismissal, the Supreme Court can now focus on two urgent tasks at hand; ruling on the petitions questioning the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act, and responding to calls for judicial action on the killing of and threats against lawyers.

Leonen, known for his strong dissenting voice in the High Court, is one of the three remaining magistrates appointed by the Aquino administration. The Supreme Court on the whole has decided on recent cases with greater independence from the administration. Given the president’s hold on the legislative process, media should focus on the judiciary and its potential to maintain the check and balance of powers required in this alleged democracy.