NETWORTH / TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
MANILA, JANUARY 24, 2012 (TRIBUNE)
EXCLUSIVE By Ninez Cacho-Olivares - Sereno's P25-M arbitration
fees not included in SALn
Supreme Court Junior Associate Justice Lourdes Sereno, the first
appointee to the High Court of President Aquino, submitted, together with
Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio a summary of their Statement of Assets
and Liabilities, where Sereno claimed a networth of some P14 million.
Yet documents tend to prove that Sereno mistated her networth and perhaps
even failed to declare a huge amount of fees in dollars amounting to some $
580,000.00 or P25 million collected by her as one of the Philippine government's
lawyer in arbitrating the cases concerning the Philippine International Airport
Terminals Co. (Piatco) in the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in
Singapore and the ICC in Washington in the case of Fraport AG, on the Ninoy
Aquino International Airport Terminal lll (NAIA-3) controversy.
Sereno has also allegedly issued a false statement on her application to the
Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for the High Court's post, claiming she was a
lecturer at the Hague Academy of International Law.
"That is absolutely false," a Tribune source said. "She was never a lecturer
at the Hague Academy."
Sereno was appointed Associate Justice of the high court in August 2010.
She served as the Republic of the Philippines' lawyer in the arbitration
cases at the ICC in Singapore and Washington from the start up till her
appointment to the Supreme Court, or a time frame of close to six years.
Aquino and his aides have been fulsome in their praise of Sereno, to the
point of once saying that, as a replacement for Chief Justice Renato Corona, the
president wants a CJ in the mold of Justice Sereno who is generally regarded as
being highly biased in favor of Aquino and the executive branch, as her
dissenting opinions show.
But documents in the possession of the Tribune tends to establish that
Aquino's appointee may not be deserving of such praise, since her SALn summary
stated that she has a networth of only P14 million, which does not jibe with
some P25 million she had collected as her legal fees alone.
Documents recently obtained by The Tribune showed that Sereno, as the
Philippine government's lawyer in the Singapore Arbitration Court was paid a
hefty US$324,674 (P13.9 million) in legal and professional fees and other costs
and expenses.
Her fees alone, as of December 31, 2010, for ICC case Number
12610/TE/MW/AVH/JEM Piatco v. GRP as stated in the documents, showed a sum of
$312,619.54 (P13.4 million) while "other costs and expenses" under her name came
up to $12,054.83 (P518,358).
These figures are her fees and expenses only for the Piatco Singapore ICC
case, not counting the Fraport case in Washington ICC, which fees for Sereno,
shot up to $254,000 (P10.9 million).
Her legal fees and expenses were separate and distinct from the legal fees
and other costs and expenses of another government lawyer for the same
arbitration case, former Supreme Court Associate Justice Florentino Feliciano
who obtained a hefty fee of $343,892.65 (P14.8 million) with expenses of
$6,997.87 (P300,908), or roughly half of the expenses incurred by Sereno.
Justice Vicente Mendoza also earned a fee of $113,850.00 (P4.9 million), with
no expenses incurred.
Office of the Solictor-General (OSG) lawyers and staff had, as "Other costs
and expenses",$599,794.25 (P25.8 million) as of December 31, 2010.
The summary of these fees of the government lawyers were attested to in an
affidavit from Edgar Dimayuga, Director lV of the Financial Management Service
of the OSG, and sworn before Bernard Hernandez, Assistant Solictor-General.
The affidavit was issued by Dimayuga, who is in charge of financial and
administrative matters related to the international arbitration cases filed
against the Philippine government and "in compliance to the Tribunal's Order
dated Decemebr 3, 2010, directing the Republic 'to provide evidence that the
costs it has claimed have (1) been incurred; and (2) been paid by the Republic
of the Philippines Jan. 21, 2011' in connection with the arbitration case filed
by Piatco against the Republic pending before the ICC" where the affiant swore
to the accuracy and correctnessness of the contents.
He also affirmed the "summaries of invoices from Justice Florentino
Feliciano, Professor Maria Lourdes Sereno and Justice Vicente
Mendoza...submitted...based on available data amd record and paid by the
Republic."
A Commission on Audit report from the Office of the Auditor at the Manila
International Airport Authority (MIAA) stated that, "in a series of Board
Resolutions, authorized the release of funds relative to the NAIA Termina 3
Arbitration Case in the amount of US$58,246,381 (billion) or P2,845,923,943.58
and P2,600,000. 00 or an aggregate amount of P2,848,523,943.58 (billion) from
November 25, 2003 to January 21,2011."
Also contained in the letter to Director Divinia M. Alagon, Cluster B,
Corporate Government Sector, Commission on Audit by Jimmy B. Gianan, Supervising
Auditor, he stated: "Based on the above data/information, and taken into account
that the government had already spent billions of pesos and still counting, if
we pursue the cases, we believe that the government should now enter into a
settlement with Fraport AG in Germany to stop bleeding the agency (NAIA3) of its
much-needed resources which could be channeled to the improvement of its
facilities.
"In the spirit of justice, Fraport should be compensated for the construction
of the facility. The only question remaining is the determination of the just
cost."
From the OSG documents, it was gleaned that Sereno was also charging—by way
of documented vouchers—for her expenses which averaged over the years at some
$12,000 per month.
There was no breakdown of the claimed monthly expenses, although she was
listed by the OSG as having charged for her legal services for the following
tasks: "Reviewed and analyzed correspondence and case files; strategized with
government officials and co-counsel; worked on Philippine legal arguments."
Such tasks were always the same for the months and years that she was the
co-counsel.
It has also been reported that Sereno, when she traveled always traveled not
on economy basis and also stayed at five star hotel abroad.
At the start, there were no charges for expenses at least in 2003. However,
from October 1 to 15, Sereno appears to have started charging for expenses, such
as travel expenses, photocopying and telephone charges, with a voucher showing
$601.74.
It has also been noted that as the months went by, the charges on the
expenses attached to Sereno increased, with one month in 2005 showing an expense
of $4,114.81, also for the same items: Travel expenses, photocopying and
telephone charges.
The question now that is being asked is if Justice Sereno has only a networth
of P14 million, did she include her P25 million legal fees, since there is a
great variance in what she had earned, and what she has declared as her
networth.
Fairness dictates Drilon inhibits EDITORIAL
Sen. Franklin Drilon, a member of the Senate court, cannot act
concurrently as chief prosecutor in the impeachment.
It is not in the rules, it is against any measure of fairness and is simply
illogical.
Defending himself against allegations of lawyering against impeached Chief
Justice Renato Corona, Drilon blurted out that the court that he belongs to must
not "suppress the truth" and made reference to the impeachment trial of former
President Joseph Estrada where he claimed the decision of the Senate judges not
to open a controversial envelope sparked the Edsa II revolt, which, however, had
long been acknowledged as a conspiracy hatched long before the impeachment of
Estrada.
And what was the truth that Drilon and the anti-Estrada groups refused to
unearth, by going to Edsa II instead, where lies and mob rule were masters?
Because the truth was that the envelope contained, documents that proved the
Jose Velarde account was owned and operated, not by Estrada, but by Jaime
Dichaves.
Moreover, it was Drilon and the then prosecutors who rejected to call on a
vice president of the bank to attest that the paper signed by Estrada was not
honored by the bank, precisely because it would have proven that Estrada was not
the owner of the account.
They tried to hide the truth from the people, not Estrada.
The statement of Drilon evokes a feeling of his distrust of his colleagues in
the court since it follows that without his intervention or probably the whole
Liberal Party (LP) contingent in the Senate, the impeachment court may fall the
way of its predecessor in sparking a revolt.
The righteous top lapdog of Noynoy in the Senate is also the chairman of the
LP, which from the mouth of Noynoy, has a crusade to remove Corona from the high
tribunal.
During the anniversary celebrations of the LP last Friday, the predominant
topic was to bring down Corona in the guise of reforming the legislature.
The move to oust Corona has reached an overdrive after the Supreme Court
issued a decision upholding a ruling of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
(PARC) for land distribution of the vast Hacienda Luisita owned by the
Aquino-Cojuangco clan of Noynoy.
The defense cited two instances already during the four days since the
impeachment court opened that Drilon had acted as lawyer for the prosecution,
one in securing Corona's statement of assets and liabilities networth (SALn)
from Clerk of Court Enriqueta Vidal and when he extracted an admission from a
register of deeds that the document cited Corona as having acted as attorney in
fact for one of the sold properties that Corona once owned.
Impeachment court presiding officer Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile is
making the best use of his wisdom for his long stint in the Senate in avoiding a
confrontation with Drilon and the other senator-judges believed to be lawyering
for the prosecution saying he would leave it to the best judgment of the members
of the impeachment court on what is proper.
Drilon appeared bent on continuing his moonlighting for the prosecution since
members of the impeachment court appear to have been given great latitude. What
they do during the trial is for them to decide, since their impartiality seems
to be considered a given, being the representatives of the people.
Thus, the decision of whether or not to be impartial in the proceeding is
left to the sense of fairness of each of the senator-judges.
Drilon would be hard pressed to prove his impartiality among the LP members
in the Senate because he has been the one actively pressing witnesses to produce
evidence which without argument is the sole job of the prosecution team.
Drilon from here on would be perceived incapable of rendering a fair decision
on the conviction or acquittal of Corona.
The only option open for Drilon to redeem his air of impartiality is to
inhibit himself from the proceedings.
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2012 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All
rights reserved
PHILIPPINE
HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
phno-digest@yahoogroups.com
phno-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
