Confusing twist

Last Oct. 15, the Supreme Court which had slapped sanctions earlier on five Court of Appeals justices involved in the case between the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the one hand and Meralco on the other denied with finality the respective motions for reconsideration filed by the said five justices.

It will be recalled that the scandal started when CA Justice Jose Sabio initiated a public squabble with his fellow justices over who should handle the said case.

The CA Justices involved aside from Sabio were Conrado Vasquez Jr., Vicente Roxas, Bienvenido Reyes Jr., and Myrna Vidal. Vasquez and Reyes were reprimanded while Vidal was admonished. Sabio, who the investigating panel had found to have the most number of ethics violations, was merely given a tap on his knuckles and suspended for two months. Justice Roxas who had not been cited for ethical violations anywhere near as much by the panel was dismissed from the judiciary. 

The five CA justices had filed their respective motions but the SC denied all with finality. In the same judgment, the high court also threw out the MR filed by businessman Francis de Borja who Sabio alleged had tried to bribe him in connection with the same case.

There has been much speculation on this landmark decision which some people think is meant to bring back public respect to the judiciary tainted by the Meralco-GSIS brouhaha. There are some however who say that the decision puts an early lid on the scandal which had been threatening to expose other influential persons. The latter may be an unfair analysis of the decision.

When the SC rules with finality, it means the end of the road for those at the receiving end of its decision. Lawyers say it doesn’t mean though that the verdict may not be dissected. They find particularly puzzling the SC ruling on the MR filed by de Borja. The SC proclaimed that both the Court and the panel could not, and in fact did not, rule upon the criminal charge of attempt or offer to bribe a public officer against de Borja in these administrative proceedings.

But then the SC said his choice of persons to include in his prayer for further investigation or more severe sanctions tend to indicate that in filing the motion for reconsideration, de Borja is not acting purely on his own interests but rather the interests of another party.

The SC proclaimed further that the justice department would accord de Borja the fullest opportunity to defend himself and would give due respect to all his constitutional rights.

Some quarters were confused and wonder what the High Court meant when it said that de Borja’s MR filing tends to indicate that he is acting for the “interests of another party.”

When de Borja was asked to comment on the SC judgment, his reply was succinct: “I was advised by counsel that there is no rule of law that prohibits me from raising in an administrative case the issues versus the Justices and the GSIS lawyers. I could have kept a low profile, simply not filed an MR and disappeared into the woodwork. However, I believed that the errors, inconsistencies and misinterpretations vis-à-vis the panel findings, and overall unfairness of the SC judgment had to be pointed out. By the filing of my MR, I chose therefore to put my thinking on record.”

It’s unfair to think that the SC had motives other than the proper dispensation of justice. However, the ruling as far as de Borja’s motion, especially the suggestion that he might be acting on the interests of another party, is a bit confusing as far as some sectors are concerned.  

For comments, e-mail at [email protected]