Justice in the Judiciary

The dismissal of Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory Ong by a majority vote of the Supreme Court has provided some very interesting insights on the issue of corruption in the judiciary. There have been some pleasant surprises, but worrisome questions have also been raised.

This case started when on October 7, 2013, Chief Justice Sereno wrote the members of the Supreme Court that Benhur Luy and other whistleblowers testified before the Blue Ribbon committee that “the malversation case involving Mrs. Janet Lim Napoles, Major Jaime Napoles, Jenny Lim Napoles, Reynaldo Francisco, other perpetrators was ‘fixed’ (inayos) through the intervention of Justice Gregory S. Ong of the Sandiganbayan.”

Ong was the presiding judge which dismissed the case against Napoles, then accused of irregularities in the government purchase of inferior Kevlar helmets to be used by the Armed Forces. After reading media reports of the decision, it seemed very clear that Ong was guilty of acts of corruption.

I was very surprised, however, when I read that the decision was upheld by only eight out of 17 justices. I decided to read copies of the different decisions written for and against the removal of Ong.

It seemed to be very clear to Chief Justice Sereno and other Justices like Antonio Carpio, Arturo Brion and Marvic Leonen that Ong was guilty of “gross misconduct, dishonesty and impropriety” and should, therefore, be dismissed from the Sandiganbayan. But to at least three other justices — Jose Portugal Perez, Lucas Bersamin and Bienvenido Reyes — the same acts were only cases of SIMPLE “misconduct.”

One of the arguments against the Ong dismissal was penned by Justice Bersamin who wrote: “The dishonesty of Justice Ong for having initially denied any acquaintance with Napoles was not of the seriousness or gravity to merit the extreme penalty of dismissal. His denial neither related to his official duties nor his qualifications as a Justice of the Sandiganbayan.” If this is true, then why did Ong deny knowing Napoles if there was nothing wrong with him being a friend of Napoles?

In the opinions of those who believed that Ong was guilty, there were some interesting lessons for me. For example, the Court reaffirmed that a bribe or a gift is not restricted to a physical object or to money. But also in the form of a favor.

Many people do not know that one of the “gifts” Napoles extended to Ong was to help him wear the Black Nazarene robe. Ong was apparently a Black Nazarene devotee and was  suffering from a serious ailment. It seemed that after her acquittal, she went to Ong to thank him. Here are the highlights of that incident as written in Justice Leonen’s decision:

“It was after this conversation when Napoles began talking about her work with churches and offered Justice Ong the opportunity to wear the robe of the Black Nazarene. This gives us the impression that Justice Ong accepted the favor in return for the acquittal. The height of the impropriety can be seen in the manner Napoles arranged for Justice Ong to meet Monsignor Ramirez, the parish priest of Quiapo Church. The meeting occurred on a Sunday. Sunday is sacred for Catholics, a day when all priests are busy. Justice Ong had the luxury of being picked up by Napoles’ driver. There was a private mass officiated by Monsignor Ramirez and attended by several Chinese individuals. This meeting in itself was already a huge favor for Justice Ong.

Justice Ong felt that Napoles ‘was instrumental in successfully paving the way ...to be able to do something that was important to him.’ It did not bother him that Napoles, who provided this favor and accommodation to him, was a winning litigant in a previous case that his Sandiganbayan Division decided.”

One possible question this incident raises is whether the Catholic Church has its own mechanism for investigating possible links between members of its clergy and corrupt people. I remember that Cardinal Sin refused to accept donations from PAGCOR funds because the Church had taken a strong stand against gambling. So even legal donations were rejected because the source was considered tainted.

It was also enlightening that even some members of the Supreme Court could be pragmatic in the exercise of their duties. Justice Arturo Brion, in his own decision, included the following opinion about hearsay evidence which I hope other members of the judiciary will take to heart:

“Bribery like rape is a transgression that is almost never committed in public view. It thrives and prospers in the dark, in secrecy. But this illegality is not totally unknown to the Members of this Court; we all know that bribery is happening in our midst. The media hints at it; law practitioners talk about it and do not even do so in whispers; clients accept it as a fact of litigation and readily accept their counsels’ claim for extra expense ‘para kay judge or para kay fiscal’ – a grave injustice to many in the judiciary and the prosecution service who have strictly trodden the high road of morality in the public service.

In one recent matter, we even asked a leading and high profile law practitioner to explain the claim she made in a leading radio station that bribery exists in the High Court. She blithely escaped sanction by saying she only ‘heard’ about it, but at the same time hinted that she could not speak about this charge because she has cases before the Court.”

Is it possible that finally even members of the Supreme Court are willing to publicly accept that even in the Supreme Court there are cases of bribery?

I had always perceived that the High Court was imperious to public criticisms. But there was a hint in the majority decision that indicates the Justices are only human. Here is one paragraph in that decision:

?“Because magistrates are under constant public scrutiny, the termination of a case will not deter public criticisms for acts which may cast suspicion on its disposition or resolution. As what transpired in this case, respondent’s association with Napoles has unfortunately dragged the Judciary into the ‘ Pork Barrel’ controversy which initially involved only legislative and executive officials. Worse, Napoles’ much flaunted “contact” in the judiciary is no less than a Justice of the Sandiganbayan, our special court tasked with hearing graft cases. We cannot, by any stretch of indulgence and compassion, consider respondent’s transgression as a simple misconduct.”

The dismissal of Justice Ong, should not, however, be the end of this sordid affair. Senators have been put in jail for alleged corruption and connivance with Napoles. Now that the High Court has ruled Ong is guilty of bribery and wrongfully acquitting Napoles, when is he going to pay the price for his crime? Is dismissal the only punishment for judges, unlike legislators and private citizens who are put in jail by the Judiciary for the same type of crime? If the decision to acquit Napoles was fraudulent and dishonest, what will be the punishment for the two other Sandiganbayan justices – Jose Hernandez and Cristina Cornejo – who joined Ong in that decision?

The dismissal of Justice Ong and the public acceptance of the Court members that corruption exists even in the High Court gives us hope that finally the nation is on the path to justice in the judiciary.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]