In his column (“As I See It”, Philippine Daily Inquirer,
- The current scandal involving Court of Appeals Justices (re: Meralco Case) once again raises the issue of judicial corruption. He stated:
“Sometimes the accusations are unfair but at other times they are true. Those at the receiving end of unfair accusations say that this is a normal hazard of the service, considering that losing parties would usually cry injustice whenever an unfavorable decision is handed down. More often than not, it will be very hard to prove the bribery precisely because it is done in secrecy. The more practical solution to the problem lies not in catching the corrupt judge or justice but in preventing a corrupt individual from being appointed to the judiciary. The fact that rogue judges and justices abound should be blamed on the appointing power for putting them there. It seems that judicial appointments based on merit are becoming more the exception than the rule. Political patronage is still the primary qualification for judicial appointments, or any presidential appointment for that matter.”
- “The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which is charged with the duty of screening nominees for judicial positions, should live up to its duty and the public’s expectations by nominating only candidates of unquestionable competence, probity and integrity for judicial positions. The appointing power, on the other hand, should let the JBC do its job and refrain from influencing the nomination process. In the end, whoever gets appointed should be the responsibility of the appointing power.”
- “Because of the increasing scandals involving judges and justices, I think the judiciary needs reforms very badly. For one thing, the Supreme Court seems reluctant to punish one of its own, sometimes penalizing erring judges with mere slaps on the wrist, or clearing some of them with stilted arguments. That is hardly conducive to discouraging future wrongdoing. On the contrary, it encourages more of the same; if you get caught you may be able to get away with a mere reprimand or a brief suspension.”
- “I think that politicians should be banned from appointments to the judiciary, especially to the appellate courts. A politician has many debts owed to friends and supporters incurred during his political battles. More debts are incurred when patrons successfully get him appointed to the judiciary. Judges and justices being only human, gratitude will surely influence their decisions on cases involving some of these patrons. That is not conducive to justice without fear or favor.”
- “And I think retired justices should be barred from appearing as counsels for litigants. Justices, retired or not, carry the reputations of their positions with them wherever they go. They are usually held in awe and with such respect by judges and lawyers that it cannot be helped that their appearance in court as counsel for one of the litigants will exert influence on the decision-making of the judge trying the case. Retired justices already enjoy generous pensions so that they hardly need any “sidelines” in their twilight years. To keep busy, they can teach, lecture, or write books.”
- “Generous legal fees from wealthy litigants are a real temptation but ethics should keep the temptation in check. If not, a Supreme Court ruling or a law should put the retired justice in his proper place.”
Related
| 1st hearing on justices’ bribery quick, quiet By Jerome Aning, Edson C. Tandoc Jr. Quick and quiet was Thursday’s first public hearing of the three-member panel formed by the Supreme Court to look into the purported improprieties and bribery attempt involving CA justices who had handled a case between Manila Electric Co. and the Government Service Insurance System. “Dedma” (roughly, emotionless) was how CA Associate Justice Jose Sabio (who had blown the whistle on a purported P10-million bribe attempt) later described to reporters how he felt upon seeing businessman Francis de Borja (who had denied Sabio’s claim). Indeed, the two men, by their own accounts acquaintances of long standing, did not look at each other and were seated three chairs apart. The hearing that began at about 9:15 a.m. was over in 30 minutes. Sabio, De Borja and seven other CA justices sat with their backs to the gallery as they listened to instructions from the panel composed of retired Supreme Court Associate Justices Carolina Griño-Aquino, Flerida Ruth Romero and Romeo Callejo Sr. The others summoned by the committee were CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez and Associate Justices Bienvenido Reyes, Vicente Roxas, Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, Apolinario Bruselas Jr., Martin Villarama Jr. and Edgardo Cruz. Where they sat The seating arrangements at Thursday’s hearing indicated the contending camps and their varying positions on the issue. Vasquez, who had tried to mediate in the controversy over which division should rule on the Meralco vs. GSIS case but ended up referring the matter to the Supreme Court, sat near the middle of the table. On Vasquez’s left were Villarama and Cruz, who had been consulted by the feuding Sabio and Reyes on who should have jurisdiction over the case. At the extreme left sat De Borja. On Vasquez’s right sat Sabio and then Vidal, the acting chair and former member, respectively, of the 9th Division that issued the earlier temporary restraining order favoring Meralco, and who had both protested their being excluded from the case. On their right sat Reyes and Roxas, regular chair and member, respectively, of the 9th Division, and Bruselas. The three, after reorganization at the CA, became members of the 8th Division that issued the July 24 decision favoring Meralco. Roxas was the ponente, or writer of the decision. Aquino, the committee chair, required Sabio et al. to submit their affidavits not later than 4 p.m. Thursday. She said the affidavits would serve as direct testimony, thus abbreviating the proceedings. Callejo instructed Sabio et al. to furnish one another copies of their affidavits so that anyone feeling alluded to could respond. He warned that only statements of facts, and not conclusions and hearsay, may be included in the affidavits. No lawyers for justices Sabio, Vasquez, Vidal and Villarama are to take the witness stand at Friday’s hearing. Being all lawyers, the CA justices summoned will not be represented by legal counsel, the panel said. The panel is ensuring a speedy investigation, with Aquino declaring that no motion for postponement would be granted and that a final report containing findings and recommendations would be issued “not later than Aug. 21.” According to Aquino, the witnesses are allowed to attach to their affidavits as many documents—letters, court issuances, sworn statements of supporting witnesses, etc.—as they wish. “Whatever you believe will support your allegations or additionally support your affidavit, attach it,” she said. To further speed up proceedings, official documents may be photocopied. The authenticity of the papers may later be certified by the witnesses before the panel or determined upon comparison with the records of the case involving Meralco’s efforts to resist a takeover by the GSIS. ‘Kawawa naman siya’ De Borja, who had earlier described himself as a friend of Meralco chair Manuel Lopez, arrived about 10 minutes earlier than Sabio. Asked later by reporters how he felt seeing De Borja, Sabio said: “Dedma lang.” “[I had] no feeling whatsoever. But this morning, my daughter in the Sabio had earlier told CA Presiding Justice Vasquez that someone “brokering for Meralco” had offered him P10 million to inhibit himself from the case in which the power utility sought the voiding of the Securities and Exchange Commission order stopping Meralco from including proxy votes in its May 27 board elections. Feeling alluded to, De Borja had come forward and denied making such an offer to Sabio. In an affidavit, he had also said Sabio claimed to have been offered by the government cash and a seat in the Supreme Court “to favor the GSIS position,” and that when he asked what it would take for Sabio to resist the purported offer, the justice said: “50 million.” Sabio had promptly denied De Borja’s claims. Surprise testimony Asked again how he felt when he saw his fellow CA justices, including Reyes, with whom he had had a falling out, Sabio said: “Wala. Dedma rin.” “I am happy this incident happened, so a lot of matters can be looked into.” Sabio said those trying to discredit him would be surprised by his testimony. He said he had told a number of people about the P10-million offer right after he rejected it, including Fr. Joaquin Bernas, the constitutionalist and law dean, and also his and his daughter’s confessor. He also said he would ask Bernas if the latter could draft an affidavit, “because I think as a priest, how can he deny that we discussed [the bribe offer] in the faculty lounge [of the What they said At the beginning of the hearing, each justice and De Borja introduced themselves to the panel. Vasquez, Sabio and Villarama raised points of clarification. Toward the end, a number of the justices asked technical questions, including to whom they would submit their affidavits, and how De Borja, who lives in Pateros, would be provided his copies. The panel allowed the justices to submit their affidavits to the clerks of court of the Supreme Court or the appellate court, from where De Borja could pick up his own copies. It also indicated that it may summon Evelyn Clavano, a friend of both Sabio’s and De Borja’s. It was Sabio who had earlier presented an affidavit from Clavano stating that De Borja had asked her for the justice’s phone number so he could contact the latter regarding possible inhibition from the Meralco vs. GSIS case. Sabio said he was ready to present Clavano, who lives in Cagayan de Oro City, to the panel, and that he would also present affidavits by his daughter, whom he had informed about the purported bribe offer by text message. Bruselas merited a scolding from Callejo for saying that while he was happy to appear before the panel, he was surprised at being called to the investigation. He said his role in the controversy was minimal and that he had already written Vasquez a detailed narration of what he knew about the case. Callejo said Bruselas should not be surprised because the latter had signed the decision favoring Meralco, written Vasquez a letter about the case, and made comments. Bruselas promptly withdrew his remark that he was surprised. Wait for conclusion Aquino requested reporters to “not interpret or anticipate” testimony in the hearings, but clarified that the panel was not issuing a gag order on the proceedings. She said the media should wait for the conclusion of the investigation before publishing or airing comments on the evidence and testimony offered to the panel. “It’s the panel’s duty to come out with the conclusions,” Aquino said. Explaining the panel’s directive to reporters, Supreme Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez said it was a mere reiteration of the rule of sub judice. “The committee is just telling the media to be very careful because there are charges and countercharges, accusations and counteraccusations,” Marquez said. He said the directive was made “so that the media will not preempt the committee, and so that the general public will not make its own conclusions before the [investigation] is over.” |
| |
