SC probing corruption allegations within ranks

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) is looking into allegations of corruption within its ranks and in the Court of Appeals (CA) as claimed by the former lawyer of alleged pork barrel scam brains Janet Lim–Napoles.

The SC asked lawyer Lorna Kapunan to explain her allegations made during an interview with ABS-CBN’s Umagang Kay Ganda last Nov. 21.

The high court gave Kapunan 10 days from receipt of notice to explain what she alleged as corruption in the judiciary, according to SC clerk of court Enriqueta Vidal.

The directive was issued motu propio or without being asked by any party.

SC spokesman Theodore Te clarified the order does not mean that Kapunan is under administrative investigation. He said it is also not equivalent to a show cause order, which warns lawyers or litigants of possible contempt citation.

Kapunan said she could comply with the SC directive.

“I welcome the opportunity to help (the SC) in light of the statement of Chief Justice (Ma. Lourdes) Sereno to purge the judiciary of hoodlums in robes,” she said.

In the ABS-CBN interview, Kapunan claimed she knew of corruption in the high tribunal and in the appellate court.

She answered “yes” in Filipino when asked by the host if she knew of an SC magistrate who could be paid by litigants in exchange for a favorable decision. 

“I am told that a TRO (temporary restraining order) in the CA can be paid by as much as P5 million,” she told the host without elaborating. 

The high tribunal is currently investigating the reported influence peddling in trial courts allegedly perpetrated by a certain “Ma’am Arlene.”

An ad hoc committee chaired by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen conducts the fact-finding probe. Media, however, are not allowed to cover the proceedings.

Initial investigations conducted by the office of the court administrator (OCA) showed there were three “Arlenes” in the judiciary  — a clerk in the CA, a former employee in the Manila regional trial court and staffer at the Manila City Hall.

It was earlier confirmed that Arlene Lerma — who reportedly left the country last month — is among those being investigated.

The OCA had traced the source of the report to a supposed “smear campaign” in the electoral contest in the Philippine Judges Association (PJA).

The three judges who vied for the top PJA post have denied involvement in the controversy.

Newly elected PJA president and Quezon City Judge Ralph Lee and his rivals — Makati Judge Rommel Baybay and Judge Felix Reyes of Marikina — said they have nothing to do with the issue. 

Impeachment vs SC justices

A lawmaker has warned of another impeachment proceeding against SC justices should they keep on practicing what he described as “judicial despotism.”

Mindoro Oriental Rep. Reynaldo Umali cited SC’s many flip-flopping decisions as a form of “judicial despotism.”

He said such acts by the SC justices undermined the Constitution and disrespected Congress as a coequal branch of government.

Umali, a member of the House prosecution panel that impeached former chief justice Renato Corona, cited an SC ruling declaring as unconstitutional the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), and the disqualification of Marinduque Rep. Regina Reyes, whose case was lodged before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal.

“We must not let these despotic magistrates sit on their iron thrones for a minute longer. They must know where they stand and if they will continue to lord over the foundations of our great Republic, then they only deserve to be impeached,”  Umali said in his privilege speech Tuesday night.

It was the first time a member of Congress openly criticized the SC’s decision on PDAF. 

The electoral protest against Reyes is being pushed by her political rival, former Rep. Lord Allan Velasco, a son of Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco.

The elder Velasco chairs the HRET.

Umali cited other “instances of despotism” allegedly shown by the SC justices, including the walkout of Corona during the impeachment trial, and the “hastily issued” temporary restraining order in 2010 preventing the House from inviting former ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, who was then facing an impeachment complaint. 

“Not contented with its despotic tendencies, the Supreme Court strikes again by undermining its counterpart branches of government this time, both the legislative and the executive in flip-flopping fashion,” he said.

“Whatever happened to the doctrine of stare decisis or adherence to precedents, when just a year ago the same court ruled the PDAF is constitutional?” Umali asked.

He said Reyes is a sitting member of Congress, but some magistrates disqualified her on technical grounds.

“Again in utter disregard of the doctrine of stare decisis and disrespect to the separate and independent powers of the House of Representatives.”

Blackmail

Meanwhile, the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) said the threat of impeachment is a ploy of the administration and the Liberal Party (LP) to blackmail the SC justices.

UNA secretary-general Toby Tiangco said the floating of another impeachment is aimed at blackmailing justices into declaring the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) as legal.

“The Constitution is very clear on the grounds for impeachment. Congress cannot just threaten the SC justices of impeachment every time it does not agree with the High Court’s decision — especially whenever the House of Representatives or one of its members is affected, or even worse, when Malacañang or the LP does not get its way.” — With Jose Rodel Clapano, Paolo Romero