Fourteen justices of the Supreme Court have approved a formal investigation of their beleaguered colleague, Justice Fidel Purisima, over his handling of the controversial 1999 committee on Bar examinations.
Retired Supreme Court Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera will head the investigating panel, with two other retired justices, Camilo Quiason and Jose Feria, as members.
The panel will determine the circumstances behind Purisima's belated disclosure that his nephew Mark Anthony, 32, took the Bar exams last year.
Reliable sources said the Supreme Court acted on a request of former Senate President Jovito Salonga and former Justice Secretary Sedfrey Ordoñez for a thorough and impartial investigation. The tribunal has reportedly forwarded the letter of Salonga and Ordoñez to Herrera.
During the high tribunal's deliberations in Baguio City last month, the panel members were designated to submit proposals regarding the conduct of Bar exams. The move was meant to avoid a repeat of the Purisima incident, wherein the Bar results were delayed for three days because Purisima refused to step down as bar chairman.
Purisima, who will retire on Oct. 28 when he reached the mandatory retirement age of 70, was censured by his colleagues last March 22 for breach of duty and confidence. His P500,000 as Bar chairman was reduced by half. He is currently on leave in the United States.
It was the first time in the high court's 99-year history that a justice had been censured by his colleagues. Purisima had ignored calls for his resignation, saying he did nothing wrong.
Court insiders say the probe was the best the jurists could do because only Congress could compel Purisima to step down and forefeit his retirement benefits.
Salonga and Ordoñez had specifically requested that Herrera, who heads the Philippine Judicial Academy, should head the probe panel, citing her credibility and integrity.
"To clear the air and enable the public -- particularly those who took the Bar exams and their families -- to distinguish between truth and falsehood, separate fact from fiction, and thereby know the whole truth, instead of the piecemeal revelations of the truth, may we respectfully suggest that the committee under the leadership of former Justice Herrera be authorized by the Court to conduct a prompt, independent and thoroughgoing investigation," Salonga and Ordoñez wrote.
The panel can submit its findings to the Supreme Court (SC) and later reveal these to the public, the two men suggested.
"Hopefully, once the report is submitted and circulated, the appropriate sanctions can be initiated by the proper authorities, without fear or favor and with the backing of public opinion," they added.
They cited as basis for the investigation Purisima's admission that his nephew took the examination, and that last year he leaked to Ombudsman Aniano Desierto the results of the SC's voting on the behest loan case.
Salonga and Ordoñez also cited Purisima's alleged "insistence to fast-track" and handle the jai-alai case, as well as his draft decision on the National Telecommunications case which "found its way into the PLDT offices, signed by Purisima but not signed by other justices."
"Because of their far-reaching implications and consequences, these new revelations, in our view, should have been more than enough to warrant an independent, impartial and thorough investigation. They have been published in the papers and have not been denied, as far as we know," Salonga and Ordoñez said in their three-page letter.