By Jeffrey Damicog
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on Wednesday (April 26) denied allegations that its top executives have been receiving allowances from Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.
The IBP issued a statement saying that “the President, Executive Vice President, the members of the Board of Governors, all Chapter and Regional Officers of IBP do not receive any allowance from Chief Justice Sereno or the Supreme Court.”
Integrated Bar of the Philippines logo
(MANILA BULLETIN) “These elected officials of IBP serve without any compensation or honorarium,” the IBP assured. The IBP reacted to the accusations made against it by lawyer Larry Gadon who filed the impeachment complaint against Sereno. Gadon claimed that the IBP had shown bias in favor of Sereno because she has been giving allowances to these officials. “It is reckless for a lawyer to make false and unfounded allegations,” the IBP stated. “We respect every person's freedom of expression and may even try to understand his needs and motivations but truth, fairness, and professional ethics should not be lost even in partisan and passionate lawyering,” it pointed out. Meanwhile, the IBP continued to oppose the quo warranto case filed before the SC by Solicitor General Jose Calida. Calida sought with the filing of the quo warranto case to void the 2012 appointment of Sereno as chief justice for failing to comply with one of the requirements set by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) which is her non-submission of her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN). The IBP, which filed an intervention seeking to dismiss the quo warranto case, explained “impeachment and not a quo warranto petition is the constitutionally prescribed process for removing a Chief Justice.” It warned that “allowing a flimsy quo warranto petition to unseat a Chief Justice will impair the security of tenure, stability, and independence of constitutional offices.” With this, the IBP urged to maintain “the separation/balance of powers and due process enshrined in our Constitution for effective/orderly governance and to safeguard our democracy and ouru individual rights.” Regardless, the IBP noted “the quo warranto petition was filed way beyond the 1-year prescriptive period set by the Rules of Court.” The IBP also pointed out the SC does not have the power and should not supplant the determination of integrity and qualifications of a chief justice that the Constitution vests upon the JBC and the President.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines logo(MANILA BULLETIN) “These elected officials of IBP serve without any compensation or honorarium,” the IBP assured. The IBP reacted to the accusations made against it by lawyer Larry Gadon who filed the impeachment complaint against Sereno. Gadon claimed that the IBP had shown bias in favor of Sereno because she has been giving allowances to these officials. “It is reckless for a lawyer to make false and unfounded allegations,” the IBP stated. “We respect every person's freedom of expression and may even try to understand his needs and motivations but truth, fairness, and professional ethics should not be lost even in partisan and passionate lawyering,” it pointed out. Meanwhile, the IBP continued to oppose the quo warranto case filed before the SC by Solicitor General Jose Calida. Calida sought with the filing of the quo warranto case to void the 2012 appointment of Sereno as chief justice for failing to comply with one of the requirements set by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) which is her non-submission of her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN). The IBP, which filed an intervention seeking to dismiss the quo warranto case, explained “impeachment and not a quo warranto petition is the constitutionally prescribed process for removing a Chief Justice.” It warned that “allowing a flimsy quo warranto petition to unseat a Chief Justice will impair the security of tenure, stability, and independence of constitutional offices.” With this, the IBP urged to maintain “the separation/balance of powers and due process enshrined in our Constitution for effective/orderly governance and to safeguard our democracy and ouru individual rights.” Regardless, the IBP noted “the quo warranto petition was filed way beyond the 1-year prescriptive period set by the Rules of Court.” The IBP also pointed out the SC does not have the power and should not supplant the determination of integrity and qualifications of a chief justice that the Constitution vests upon the JBC and the President.