The SC fact-finding panel used criminal law terms; investigation of the CA deliberation on the Meralco-GSIS case

Vodpod videos no longer available.Embedded from abs-cbnnews.com under the “get-&-share” terms of use of said site used here for educational and non-commercial purposes

 

 

          The Integrated Bar of the Philippines national board of governors, Senator Francis Pangilinan, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago (in another news segment), Congressman Mat Defensor, constitutional law professor Edwin Lacierda, and many more  all joined yesterday (in the case of the IBP, reiterated the call;  as i said,  i was just following the example of the IBP leaders, they’re the ones leading the charge i’m just a salingpusa (i don’t seem to have a translation for salingpusa; small bit player; small na nga, bit pa; insignificant bit player;  i just got caught in the rain that day)

  the call for the resignation (or early retirement) of the Court of Appeals justices involved in the “irregularities “ in the deliberation, writing, and signing of the Meralco-GSIS decision.

        Note that when the Supreme Court fact-finding panel submitted its confidential report to the Supreme Court, the panel found  all justices investigated to have committed “malfeasance”  and “misfeasance”  as reported  in the newspapers. 

        Note that “malfeasance” and “misfeasance” are criminal law terms.  Title VII Chapter 2 of the Revised Penal Code is entitled “Malfeasance and Misfeasance in Office”; and the chapter covers two offenses, Section 1: “Dereliction of Duty” and Section 2: “Bribery”.

        Those are crimes; and the Supreme Court panel (composed of former Justice Flery Romero, former Justice Carolina Griño, and former Justice Romeo Callejo), which heard the administrative case found substantial evidence that the CA justices committed malfeasance and misfeasance. Being former justices, the SC panel members did not use criminal law terms loosely or casually; they could just have said “impropriety” or “appearance of impropriety”,  or “did not perform duties honestly and with impartiality”, those are the terms used in the Code of Judicial Conduct. The SC panel could just have used the usual “grave misconduct” or “serious misconduct”, terms always used in the usual administrative cases. 

        But no. They used criminal law terms.

       What is that trying to tell you? What did that try to tell the Supreme Court?    Did the  SC investigating  panel  have to do a song-and-dance routine, a pony show, an illustrated comics book, for the Supreme Court to get the full import of  the findings of fact?

     Yet only Justice Roxas was dismissed from service, the rest (Justice Roxas, Justice Sabio, Justice Reyes, Justice Vidal, and Justice Vasquez), just got   (the figure i used in the interview was “slap on the wrist”, so i won’t use it again), the rest just got a pinching (“kurot”, what’s with me today)  or a wag of the finger (two months suspension in the case of Justice Sabio, and reprimand for Justices Reyes and Vasquez and admonition  in the case of Justice Vidal.)   

       Note too, that the substantial evidence required in an administrative case, in certain instances,  is enough for probable cause in the  preliminary investigation of a criminal case. What are we still doing here? What’s with the endless hoops and rings and circles? 

      Justice Reyes and Justice Vidal both knew that the so-called transcript of stenographic notes were not real (the offense taken against Justice Roxas), yet the  justices went  along with it; they both knew that none of them had read the memoranda filed by the litigants,  (the offense taken against Justice Roxas) and yet  they signed the decision; in other words, none of these would have happened without their cooperation.  That cooperation was indispensable. Sounds familiar, it’s the term used in criminal law. indispensable cooperation. The SC panel used criminal law terms anyway.

       It was reported that the light penalty given to Justice Sabio was on account of his being a whistleblower. In criminal procedure, a “whistleblower” who had committed some of the criminal acts of which he/she is “singing ” (“kumanta”, what’s with me today)   is discharged as a state witness if:    1)there is absolute necessity for the testimony; 2)no other direct evidence available for the prosecution; 3)testimony can be substantially corroborated; 4)does not appear to be the most guilty; 4)never convicted of offense of moral turpitude.

         In Justice Sabio’s case as a whistleblower, while it is true that it was his affidavit-complaint that initiated the investigation, the SC panel based its findings of fact largely on each justice’s  own admissions, under oath,  that sort-of-incriminated them (i try to be polite by saying sort-of), and not on the testimonial evidence offered by Justice Sabio;  in other words, his testimony was not the direct evidence used and was not absolutely necessary.

          Furthermore, the SC panel never recommended any form of leniency for any of the justices to the Supreme Court.

       Yet….

       It’s because….

        It’s the warm and fuzzy feeling of early Filipino Christmas.  Di ka na mabiro.

         “…faithful friends who are dear to us,

             gather near to us,

             once more….”     i’m just singing for our Chrismas party, your honor.

       “Silver bells…

         silver bells it’s Christmas time

          in the city

          Ring-a-ling,

          ding-a-ling,

         ching-a-ling, i ran out of lyrics

         kling-a-ling i ran out of lyrics