TWO senators cautioned the House justice committee against provoking a constitutional crisis by issuing a subpoena to Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno to force her attendance at the impeachment proceedings against her.
Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon, in response to a threat by committee chairman and Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali to subpoena Sereno, urged the House to use “extreme caution” in using its coercive powers on the chief justice.
“The House Committee on Justice cannot force Sereno to attend and testify in an impeachment hearing against her. It cannot be done without triggering a constitutional crisis,” Drilon said.
He added that Congress can issue a subpoena and order the arrest of a witness who refuses to comply only in investigations in aid of legislation, not in impeachment proceedings.
Drilon said requiring Sereno to testify against herself “would place her under the strongest temptation to commit perjury, and subject her to an extortion of confessions by duress.”
This, he added, would violate Sereno’s constitutional rights and the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
Senator Francis Escudero also warned that a constitutional crisis would result if Sereno refuses to comply with a subpoena.
Also on Monday, the justice committee ordered two of Sereno’s lawyers as well as Commission on Human Rights Commissioner Roberto Cadiz to explain why they should not be cited for contempt for casting aspersions on the panel.
Deputy Speaker Gwendolyn Garcia took exception to statements by lawyers Joshua Santiago and Aldwin Salumbides, spokespersons for Sereno, for saying the House proceedings have turned into “a dog and pony show.”
She also complained that Salumbides had told an interview that they could not expect fair treatment, presumably from the panel.
1-SAGIP party-list Rep. Rodante Marcoleta moved to amend Garcia’s motion to include Cadiz for supposedly saying that the panel’s proceedings are governed by the “law of the jungle.”
Santiago, Salumbides and Cadiz were ordered to submit a written explanation within 72 hours why they should not be cited for contempt.
