Upload
judge-florentino-floro
View
225
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
1/86
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A
In the matter of the Allegations contained in the column of
Mr. A.P. Macasaet Published in Malaya dated September 18,
19, 20, and 21, 2007
A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC
For: Indirect Contempt (Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure).
X---------------------------------------------------------------X
Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,
Complainant,
- versus - A.M. NO. ___________________
For: Indirect Contempt - Section 3 (c) & (d), Rule 71 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), and Gross Misconduct, etc.
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago,
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
2/86
(Rm. 521-A 5th Flr., GSIS Bldg., Financial Center, Roxas Blvd.
, Pasay City)
Respondent.
X----------------------------------------------------------------------X
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno,
Senior Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing,
and the MEMBERS, En Banc, SUPREME COURT,
Padre Faura, Manila, and
Chairperson, Retired Associate Justice Carolina-Grino Aquino,
Retired Associate Justice Vicente V. Mendoza,
Retired Associate Justice Romeo Callejo, Sr.,
SUPREME COURT, Padre Faura, Manila
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
3/86
Verified Motion / Letter-Affidavit of Merit
[To Reconsider the Denial / Dismissal Resolution
(dated 16 October, 2007) for Non-payment of Docket / Legal
Fees]
- with -
Urgent Prayer
For LEAVE OF COURT, To Allow Payment of Docket / Legal
Fees (Duly Reserved), To Intervene in this Case, ForConsolidation with A.C. No. 7663 (En Banc, Disbarment Case,
Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. vs. Senator Miriam Defensor-
Santiago) and For Immediate Docketing / Resolution
Your Honors,
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
4/86
Undersigned complainant / intervenor Judge Florentino V.
Floro, Jr., most respectfully moves to reconsider the
dismissal / denial Resolution dated 16 October, 2007 (fornon-payment of docket / legal fees), WHICH HE PERSONALLY
RECEIVED ON NOVEMBER 8, 2007, and further, he petitions
to be allowed to pay the required docket and legal fees (duly
reserved), to intervene in this case, to present evidence, to
be heard, to consolidate the related disbarment case A.C.
No. 7663, and under oath, he most respectfully depose and
say, that:
GROUNDS:
1. Complainant was duly informed per television, internet
breaking news and video reports, thusly:
S.C. PIO, Atty. Midas Marquez (September 26, 2007), stated:
There are no hard and fast rules in the Supreme Court on
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
5/86
how to handle such allegations, according to Marquez.
There's no SOP really because cases like this aren't really
very common, Marquez said. The court welcomes
complaints, even anonymous complaints. We try to conduct
investigations whenever we receive complaints, but wewould really appreciate if these complaints would state in
particular detail some of the allegations so that we could
begin the investigation at some point. He lamented that
such allegations could be bandied about in the media and
tarnish the high court's reputation. "And then it would be
picked up by the media. It's bringing the entire Supreme
Court down. (By Leila Salaverria, Tetch Torres, Inquirer,
INQUIRER.net, 10:41 pm, 09/24/2007).
2. Complainant forthwith (about the last week of September
and first week of October, 2007) called the Offices of the PIO,
Clerk of Court, and OCAD, inter alia, to inquire regarding a)
where to file or what offices would receive his contempt
pleading, and b) how much legal / docket fees he should
pay. Since he never got any correct information on the
matter, he again called Atty. Winston Banel, but complainant
again failed to get the answers to his questions on saidprocedure and fees. Complainant therefore called Atty.
Midas Marquez, but complainant miserably failed to contact
this officer.
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
6/86
3. While complainant was preparing his initiatory pleading in
an internet caf, he accidentally met a classmate of Atty.Midas Marquez. The following critical facts were duly NOTED
by undersigned lest they be lost in his memory (storage), to
wit:
The Ateneo alumni and Midas (from Pampanga, as she said)
were classmates at Loyola Heights and they resided at the
Eliazo and Cervini Halls; she studied InterdisciplinaryStudies; .
4. On October 5, 2007, complainant personally approached
Atty. Winston Banel of the OCC, since he was the only one
thereat who could answer the filing questions; then,
complainant asked him where he should file and pay but
Banel said he had no idea ergo, complainant also wentto the OCAD and an officer told him to go to the
Documentation Division; complainant asked Mang Odi, the
veteran employee thereat who handles all administrative
cases or dockets; he stated that he had no idea about these
matters, but he would accept the pleading, and Mang Bito
would report the same to the Court; finally, complainant
went to the ground floor filing office of all criminal and civil
old and new cases; complainant personally went inside theroom instead of just filing the 20 copies outside; but Sally
and the other personnel thereat stated that they never and
do not accept A.M.s since they only accept G.R.s, meaning,
therefore, that complainants case is Administrative Matter
and there is no docket fee required for that even if it is
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
7/86
indirect contempt.
5. Complainant again went to Atty. Winston Bannel, OCC,
and told him that the former wanted to talk to Atty. Felipa
Anama or Atty. Ma. Luisa Villarama, but both were not
available at that time. Along the corridors complainant
accidentally met Atty. Midas Marquez who was talking to a
woman. So, complainant approached Midas, and showed him
more than 20 copies of the pleading plus the ORIGINAL.Complainant asked Midas, regarding where would file the
pleading versus Senator Santiago and where to pay. Midas
was in a great hurry and told complainant to file it anywhere,
since he said, it is up to the Court to decide. Complainant
then showed Atty. Marquez page 1 thereof, which the former
read to the latter:
S.C. PIO, Atty. Midas Marquez (September 26, 2007), stated:
There are no hard and fast rules in the Supreme Court on
how to handle such allegations, according to Marquez.
There's no SOP really because cases like this aren't really
very common, Marquez said. The court welcomes
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
8/86
complaints, even anonymous complaints. We try to conduct
investigations whenever we receive complaints, but we
would really appreciate if these complaints would state in
particular detail some of the allegations so that we could
begin the investigation at some point. He lamented thatsuch allegations could be bandied about in the media and
tarnish the high court's reputation. "And then it would be
picked up by the media. It's bringing the entire Supreme
Court down. (By Leila Salaverria, Tetch Torres, Inquirer,
INQUIRER.net, 10:41 pm, 09/24/2007).
6. Complainant therefore asked Midas for help in filing the
same, since the 3 offices of the OCC, OCAD and ground floor
filing did not know about the procedure and the fees, since
the instant case is an ADMINTRATIVE MATTER and there was
no precedent in their 3 offices. But Midas insisted that it may
be filed anywhere. Complainant told him that the OCC andthe ground floor filing would not accept it, but the OCAD
would, but would not accept any payment for fees. So, the
last word of Atty. Midas was go ahead file it and let the
Court decide. So, complainant had no option but to file it
with the OCAD Documentation Division and Mang Odi and
Mang Bito promised to report the same to the Court.
7. When the October 16, 2006 first Resolution was released,
Atty. Winston Banel informed complainant that the particular
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
9/86
resolution was still to be signed and the latter had to wait.
So, on November 5, 2007, complainant personally went to
the OCC, to get a copy thereof but Atty. Banel said that it
was not yet released. So, complainant again called Atty.
Banel on November 6 and the latter read through the phonethe denial due to non-payment of docket fees. So,
complainant again asked Banel regarding where to pay and
how much docket and legal fees should be paid, considering
that the only office which receives payment (ground floor
receiving) refused to assess fees much less to receive the
pleading and repeatedly informed complainant that there is
no docket fee required for A.M. or administrative matter or
administrative case.
8. With all these, it is not complainants fault that he failed to
pay the docket fees. This is the first time in judicial history
that an indirect contempt is being filed against a Senator
and in an Administrative Matter. Complainant based his case
and pleas upon the very statements and representations of
Atty. Midas Marquez, who is the spokesman of the Court, PIO
chief and p.s. of the Chief Justice.
9. Finally, complainant reproduces herein as integral part
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
10/86
hereof all the allegations and contents of his filed October 5,
2007 pleading in this case to prove that if this and such
initiatory pleading are given due course and granted, he
could, beyond reasonable doubt show that respondent
Miriam Santiago is guilty of indirect contempt of Court, grossmisconduct and utter destruction of the Temples of Justice.
Specifically, her lust for power (to become Chief Justice by
2010) goes beyond the legal, moral and the boundaries of
fairness and justice. She, in no uncertain terms, wanted to
destroy the persona of S.C. Associate Justice Antonio T.
Carpio, and for this, she must not escape unpunished lest
she further annihilate the entire judicial department by her
EVIL touch.
RELIEF
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed
that the instant -
Verified Motion / Letter-Affidavit of Merit
[To Reconsider the Denial / Dismissal Resolution
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
11/86
(dated 16 October, 2007) for Non-payment of Docket / Legal
Fees]
- with -
Urgent Prayer
For LEAVE OF COURT, To Allow Payment of Docket / Legal
Fees (Duly Reserved), To Intervene in this Case, For
Consolidation with A.C. No. 7663 (En Banc, Disbarment Case,Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. vs. Senator Miriam Defensor-
Santiago) and For Immediate Docketing / Resolution
- against respondent Senator Miriam Santiago, be dulyNoted, given Due Course and Granted.
Further, it is respectfully petitioned that after filing of
respondents COMMENT / ANSWER, after due notice, andhearing, judgment be rendered declaring her GUILTY of
indirect contempt of Court and gross misconduct, inter alia,
and punished accordingly under Rule 71, inter alia, of the
Rules of Court.
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
12/86
Special Prayer:
Further, petitioner most respectfully petitions this Court
1) To set this case for Oral Argument, in order that Senator
Miriam Defensor-Santiago, as lawyer and officer of the Court
may properly defend herself in the right FORUM, and be
disciplined accordingly, and
2) After all the proceedings, to PUNISH her with the same
penalties that this Court imposed upon Raul M. Gonzales,
because, the facts of that case and this case are
interestingly similar if not duplicate in character:
Court itself as an institution that has been falsely attacked,libel suits cannot be an adequate remedy. The Court
concludes that respondent Gonzalez is guilty both of
contempt of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as
an officer of the court and member of the Bar.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Raul M.
Gonzalez from the practice of law indefinitely and until
further orders from this Court, the suspension to take effect
immediately.
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
13/86
(EN BANC - October 7, 1988, G.R. No. 79690-707 - G.R. No.
80578 - February 1, 1989 - ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, petitioner,
vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and HONORABLE
RAUL M. GONZALEZ, claiming to be and acting as
Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution,
respondents. G.R. No. 80578 February 1, 1989)
Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letter-
affidavit-complaint, this 8th day of November, 2007, atMalolos City, BULACAN.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
Complainant,
123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, 3000 BULACAN,
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
14/86
Tel/#(044) 662-82-03;
[I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300; ROLL OF
ATTORNEYS NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV - PTR No.
503411, dated 1-11-07, Malolos, Bulacan.
NOTICE & REQUEST
TO: Atty. Ma. Luisa D. Villarama,
Clerk of Court, En Banc, SUPREME COURT, MANILA
c/o Atty. FELIPA ANAMA & Atty. LANI PAPA,
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
15/86
Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the
deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court,
immediately upon receipt hereof.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
Complainant
VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING &
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S.
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
16/86
I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, depose/say, that:
I am the complainant in this case. I caused the preparation,
signed and read the initial complaint duly filed in this case,
and all the contents/allegations thereof are true and correct
of my own personal knowledge or based on authenticrecords.
I certify that: I have not theretofore commenced any action
or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court,tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of our
knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein,
EXCEPT the filed A.C. No. 7663 - Disbarment Case Judge
Florentino V. Floro, Jr. vs. Senator Miriam Defensor-
Santiago, October 5, 2007, and if there is such other
pending action or claim, a complete statement of the
present status thereof will be made, but there is none; if I
should thereafter learn that the same or similar action orclaim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact
within 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
I CERTIFY that on November 8, 2007, I served copies of this
pleading with all annexes in this case: In the matter of the
Allegations contained in the column of Mr. A.P. Macaset
Published in Malaya dated September 18, 19, 20, and 21,
2007 - A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
17/86
Complainant, - versus - Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago,
upon respondents Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Mr.
Amado Macasaet, and upon Ms. Daisy Cecilia Munoz Delis,
via registered mail with return card at their offices /
addresses as hereunder indicated, in accordance with Secs.3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court, by depositing
said copies at the Malolos Post Office, as evidenced by reg.
receipt hereto attached, hereunder, PAGE 8, and indicated
after the name of the addressee, and with instructions to the
postmaster to return the mails to the sender after 10 days if
undelivered; and I served by personal service copies of this
pleading to Public Information Office, and all the members of
the Commission thru the Office of the Clerk of Court,Supreme Court, Manila, by depositing copies thereof at their
said offices / Clerk of Court, Supreme Court Manila, as
proved by the rubber stamp receipts after their names
hereunder, in accordance with the said Rules.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 8th day of
November, 2007, hereat Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant
exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at
Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007.
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
18/86
DOC. NO. ____, PAGE NO. ___, BERNAR D. FAJARDO
BOOK NO. ____, SERIES OF 2007. Notary Public,
Until Jan.31, 2008,
PTR NO. 2417109, 1- 3,07,
Atty.s Roll No. 33633,
IBP OR # 688744, 1-5,07
Malolos, Bulacan.
COPY FURNISHED:
Names of Addressees Addresses Registry Receipt No.
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
19/86
Office of the Court Administrator, (Personal Service)
OCAD, Supreme Court, Manila ,
Public Information Office, (Personal Service)
Supreme Court, Manila
The Committee, (Personal Service)
c/o The Office of the Clerk of Court,
Supreme Court, Manila
Retired Associate Justice Carolina-Grino Aquino, (Personal
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
20/86
Service)
No. 59-G Tuazon St., Quezon City,
c/o The Office of the Clerk of Court,
Supreme Court, Manila
Retired Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza, (Personal
Service)
No.3, Aster St., Fairview, Quezon City
c/o The Office of the Clerk of Court,
Supreme Court, Manila
Retired Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., (Personal
Service)
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
21/86
No. 9 Ruego St., BF Homes,
Commonwealth, Quezon City
c/o The Office of the Clerk of Court,
Supreme Court, Manila
By registered mail with receipt and return card. Explanation:
Due to lack of time and messenger and impracticality, I
served copies of this complaint and annexes to respondent
by registered mail with attached receipt, hereunder.
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago,
Respondent,
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
22/86
Rm. 521-A 5th Flr., GSIS Bldg.,
Financial Center, Roxas Blvd. ,
Pasay City.
Mr. Amado Macasaet,
Respondent, Publisher, Malaya,
371 A., Bonifacio Drive, Port Area,
Manila
(Atty. Rogelio Velarde represented him,
at the hearing dated October 30, 2007)
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
23/86
Ms. Daisy Cecilia Munoz Delis,
125-B, F. Roman St.,
Brgy. Balong Bato, San Juan City
(Atty. Ricardo Pamintuan
represented her at the hearing)
Glenda M. Gloria,
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
24/86
Newsbreak managing editor
appeared before the panel on behalf of Marites Vitug.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A
In Re: In the matter of the allegations appearing in the
column Business Circuit, of Amado Macasaet in the
September 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2007 issues of Malaya
A.M. NO. A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC
For: Indirect Contempt (Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure).
X--------------------------------------------------------------------X
Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,
Complainant,
- versus - A.M. NO. _________
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
25/86
For: Indirect Contempt - Section 3 (c) & (d), Rule 71 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), and Gross Misconduct, etc.
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago,
(Rm. 521-A 5th Flr., GSIS Bldg., Financial Center, Roxas
Blvd., Pasay City)
Respondent.
X--------------------------------------------------------------------X
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno,
Senior Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing,
and the MEMBERS, En Banc, SUPREME COURT,
Padre Faura, Manila
Verified Petition / Letter-Affidavit
[For Indirect Contempt of Court and Gross Misconduct, inter
alia]
- with -
Urgent Motions
To Allow Payment of Docket Fees (Duly Reserved), To
Intervene in this Case, For Consolidation and For Immediate
Docketing / Resolution
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
26/86
====================================
====================================
========
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Office of the Bar Confidant
SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A
Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,
Complainant,
- versus - A.C. NO. _______
For: Disbarment (Rules 138, 139-B, Rules of Court) and GrossMisconduct.
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago,
(Rm. 521-A 5th Flr., GSIS Bldg., Financial Center, Roxas
Blvd., Pasay City)
Respondent.
X------------------------------------------------------------------X
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
27/86
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno,
Senior Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing,
and the MEMBERS, En Banc, SUPREME COURT,
Padre Faura, Manila
VERIFIED DISBARMENT COMPLAINT / LETTER-AFFIDAVIT
[Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia]
With - Motions for PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, Immediate
Docketing and Early Resolution
====================================
====================================
========
Your Honors,
Undersigned complainant / intervenor Judge Florentino V.
Floro, Jr., most respectfully moves for - being allowed to pay
docket and legal fees (duly reserved), for intervention, for
consolidation, for early resolution, and under oath, most
respectfully depose and say, that:
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
28/86
S.C. PIO, Atty. Midas Marquez (September 26, 2007), stated:
There are no hard and fast rules in the Supreme Court on
how to handle such allegations, according to Marquez.
There's no SOP really because cases like this aren't really
very common, Marquez said. The court welcomes
complaints, even anonymous complaints. We try to conduct
investigations whenever we receive complaints, but we
would really appreciate if these complaints would state in
particular detail some of the allegations so that we could
begin the investigation at some point. He lamented that
such allegations could be bandied about in the media and
tarnish the high court's reputation. "And then it would be
picked up by the media. It's bringing the entire Supreme
Court down. (By Leila Salaverria, Tetch Torres, Inquirer,
INQUIRER.net, 10:41 pm, 09/24/2007).
CRITICAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS
Bill of Particulars: Articles of Indirect Contempt of Court
Article I Print Media
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article
.php?article_id=90689 ***
*** = this is the Internet URL or address / location of the
news, which when pasted to the upper part of the computer,
the Internet will open the report.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=90689http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=90689http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=90689http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=906898/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
29/86
SC justice behind smear campaign vs Santiago -- senator
Breaking News / Nation - by Veronica Uy - INQUIRER.net,
10:36pm - 09/25/2007
MANILA, Philippines -- Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago on
Tuesday accused another Supreme Court justice of
orchestrating the smear campaign against Justice Consuelo
Ynares-Santiago. The feisty Senator said Justice Santiago
was being implicated in a payoff scandal possibly to force
her to inhibit herself from a multi-billion peso land case thatis pending in the high court. The court met en banc Tuesday
to investigate media reports that insinuated Justice Santiago
received a gift-wrapped box containing P10 million and
linked the incident to the hotly-contested Maysilo-Araneta
University land case in Quezon City. Justice Santiago earlier
penned a decision affirming a Court of Appeals ruling
awarding ownership of the contested 34-hectare prime
property to the heirs of a certain Homer Barque over otherpowerful claimants. The case was later reopened. Both sides
are represented by big law firms.
In a press conference, Senator Santiago said she suspects
that another Supreme Court justice could be behind the
orchestrated media plot to bring Justice Santiago into
disgrace, and compel her to inhibit herself from writing thedecision. I suggest that the Supreme Court investigate as
well another Supreme Court justice who used to have
connections in one of the law firms involved in this case. I do
not say that the Justice devised the plot to destroy Justice
Santiago but certainly he is involved in it. Hindi nila
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
30/86
masuhulan kaya sisirain nila (They cannot bribe her, thats
why they try to destroy her instead). That justice should be
investigated. If I get more facts Ill name him outright, and
Ill have the Senate investigate more on the fiasco, she
said. (With Gil Cabacungan Jr. and Leila B. Salaverria,Philippine Daily Inquirer).
SC asks publisher to explain allegation against justice
By Leila Salaverria, Inquirer, 07:34pm (Mla time) 09/26/2007
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article
.php?article_id=90892
Asked about the allegations of Senator Miriam Defensor
Santiago that another Supreme Court justice was behind the
attacks against Santiago, Marquez said she may have toclarify her statement if there is a need for her to do so. "As
of now we don't know exactly what the good senator is
referring at. If she is sure, maybe an affidavit will help," he
said.
SC to Jake Macasaet: Explain write-up vs magistrate
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?
StoryId=94030
Lawyer Jose Midas Marquez, SC spokesman, said Macasaet
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=90892http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=90892http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=94030http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=94030http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=90892http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=90892http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=94030http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=940308/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
31/86
needs to shed light on his claim against Santiago because
the accusations have degraded the high court. Sen. Miriam
Santiago's statement Tuesday that the issue was brought
about by an internal rift among magistrates. He said he does
not know where Santiago got her information.
Justices hale publisher on bribery story
By Rey E. Requejo, Manila Standard Today, September 26,
2007
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?
page=news1_sept26_2007
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, in a statement, said she
was not related to the justice, but defended her as being
impeccably honest. She said the attacks came from
another Supreme Court justice who used to belong to a big
law firm, and could be aimed at getting her off the Quezon
City land case.
Article II Broadcast Media
Senator Miriam Santiago, in a press conference, and outside
the Senate Session Hall, specifically along the corridors,
stated on Television the foregoing accusations and
circumstances against a specific, incumbent Supreme Court
Justice:
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news1_sept26_2007http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news1_sept26_2007http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news1_sept26_2007http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news1_sept26_20078/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
32/86
Video GMA News, Channel 7
SC's Ynares-Santiago denies taking P10-M bribe
09/25/2007 | 07:27 PM
http://www.gmanews.tv/video/12104/SC's-Ynares-Santiago-
denies-taking-P10-M-bribe
Article III 2 Pending Cases Affected / Involved
SC to investigate bribery allegations vs one of its justices
by Leila Salaverria, Tetch Torres, INQUIRER.net, 09/24/2007
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article
.php?article_id=90447
In the decision penned by Justice4 Santiago released last
September 4, the high court ordered the Sandiganbayan to
dismiss the case against Go because he could be charged for
violation of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft Law Section 3
(g) because such provision only applies to public officers.
http://www.gmanews.tv/video/12104/SC's-Ynares-Santiago-denies-taking-P10-M-bribehttp://www.gmanews.tv/video/12104/SC's-Ynares-Santiago-denies-taking-P10-M-bribehttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=90447http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=90447http://www.gmanews.tv/video/12104/SC's-Ynares-Santiago-denies-taking-P10-M-bribehttp://www.gmanews.tv/video/12104/SC's-Ynares-Santiago-denies-taking-P10-M-bribehttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=90447http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=904478/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
33/86
Section 3 (g) of the Anti-Graft Law punishes "public officers
who, on behalf of the government, enter into contracts or
transactions manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the
government whether or not the public officer profited or will
profit thereby." Go, and co-accused former transportationsecretary Vicente Rivera Jr. were charged by the Office of
the Ombudsman for allegedly conspiracy in connection with
the mothballed NAIA terminal.
Justice Santiago earlier penned a decision affirming a Court
of Appeals ruling awarding ownership of the contested 34-
hectare prime property to the heirs of a certain HomerBarque over other powerful claimants. The case was later
reopened. Both sides are represented by big law firms.
Supreme Court Justice Suspected of Accepting Payoff
By Marites Daguilan Vitug and Aries Rufo -Tuesday, 25September 2007
http://www.newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=3741&Itemid=8888900
5
Two Cases: Piatco and QC Land Dispute
At the time of the alleged payoff, there were two
controversial cases pending before the Supreme Court of
which Ynares-Santiago penned the decisions. One is the
Piatco case, wherein Ynares-Santiago, this month, ordered
the dismissal of the graft case against the former chair and
http://www.newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3741&Itemid=88889005http://www.newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3741&Itemid=88889005http://www.newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3741&Itemid=88889005http://www.newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3741&Itemid=88889005http://www.newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3741&Itemid=88889005http://www.newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3741&Itemid=888890058/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
34/86
president of the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc
(Piatco), in connection with the voided contract to build the
Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3reversing an
earlier Supreme Court decision (click here for our list of
stories on NAIA-3). The High Court directed theSandiganbayan to withdraw the criminal case versus Henry
Go, saying that he was charged under the wrong provision of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. In that decision,
Ynares-Santiago reversed a decision written by Justice
Romeo Callejo in April, who retired soon after. Then, Callejo
won, with a 3-2 vote. This time, Ynares-Santiago got two
justices on her side, Adolf Azcuna and Cancio Garcia, who
concurred with her. The deliberations in the third divisionover the Piatco case were described as bitter. It was in
March that Ynares-Santiago fired Delis, at the height of the
exchanges on the case. "No concrete proof has been
shown," Moises Tolentino, Piatco spokesman, told
Newsbreak, referring to the alleged bribery. "We are the
victims here. Piatco has been battered by countless allusions
of wrongdoings."
The other case, which is still pending before the Supreme
Court en banc, reportedly has to do with a dispute over an
estimated P1.7-billion, 34-hectare prime property in Quezon
City, near the Ayala Heights subdivision. Ynares Santiago
wrote a decision in December 2005 in favor of the new
claimants, heirs of Homer Barque, invalidating the title of the
long-time settlers, the Manotoks.
SC threatens Malaya publisher with contempt over bribery
report
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
35/86
THURSDAY |SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 | PHILIPPINES
http://www.malaya.com.ph/sep27/news6.htm
Court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said the high court
might also ask Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago to explain her
statements to the media that another SC justice could be
behind the smear campaign against Justice Santiago.
"As of now, we dont know exactly what the good senator is
referring to. If she is sure, maybe an affidavit will help. I
suppose she will have to clarify that statement, the court will
decide if theres a need. We dont know yet, were focusingon the columns of Mr. Macasaet," he said. Senator Santiago
said Tuesday that the justice behind the smear campaign
"used to belong to a law firm known to be interested" in the
"lucrative Quezon city land dispute." She also said she would
name the suspect justice when she gets more facts.
LEGAL BASIS AND PRECEDENT FOR DOCKETING THIS CASE
A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA - March 27, 2001
IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS CHARGING COURT OF
APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DEMETRIO DEMETRIA WITH
INTERFERENCE ON BEHALF OF A SUSPECTED DRUG QUEEN:
COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DEMETRIO G.
DEMETRIA.
Such is this administrative charge triggered by newspaper
accounts which appeared on the 21 July 2000 issues of The
http://www.malaya.com.ph/sep27/news6.htmhttp://www.malaya.com.ph/sep27/news6.htm8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
36/86
Manila Standard, The Manila Times, Malaya, The Philippine
Daily Inquirer and Today. The national dailies collectively
reported that Court of Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio G.
Demetria tried to intercede on behalf of suspected Chinese
drug queen Yu Yuk Lai, alias Sze Yuk Lai, who went in andout of prison to play in a Manila casino. That same day, 21
July 2000, Chief Justice Davide, Jr., issued a Memorandum to
Justice Demetria directing him to comment on the
derogatory allegations in the news items.
1. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. In view of the IRREPARABLE
damage and injury to the legal profession and to the last
bulwark of democracy, this Honorable Court of Last Resort,
must defend itself and all the Justices, against EVIL. For, if
these continuing attacks by respondent Miriam Defensor-
Santiago (Senator Santiago, for brevity) are not stopped at
the earliest opportunity, the judicial department would be
helpless, all the Magistrates would be ridiculed, and like C. J.
Panganiban, Senator Santiago would repeatedly SPIT upon,
again and again upon the temple of justice.
Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties.
All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in
respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of
transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or
in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in
these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in
one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to
all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
37/86
action; but the court may make such orders as may be just
to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being
embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any
proceedings in which he may have no interest.
Sec. 8. Necessary party.
A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who
ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be
accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the
action.
Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.
Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for
dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by
order of the court on motion of any party or on its own
initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are
just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed
and proceeded with separately.
Sec. 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant.
Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown,
he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or bysuch other designation as the case may require; when his
identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be
amended accordingly.
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
38/86
2. Complainant invokes the liberal interpretation of the
Rules, especially jurisprudence on administrative cases
which in no uncertain terms teaches that the instant
administrative case is not governed by the ordinary rules of
procedure.
3. Complaint invokes the TWIN DIRECTIVES / ORDERS of this
Honorable Court to RAUL GONZALES and DEMETRIA
DEMETRIA to file COMMENT on DEROGATORY ALLEGATIONS
versus the Supreme Court / its Associate Justices, made by
them, and PUBLISHED in the NEWSPAPER REPORTS.
The ACCUSATION/CHARGES
With Legal Argument and Memorandum of Law / Authorities
With due respect
Undersigned complainant charges / accuses respondent
Senator Santiago --- with ---
a. conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, gross ignorance of the
law, indirect contempt of court, contempt of court in faciecuriae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and
member of the Bar / legal profession, to wit:
Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides that a
person may be punished for indirect contempt for:
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
39/86
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the
processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct
contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
xxx
(Vide: NICOLAS O. TAN vs. ATTY. AMADEO E. BALON, JR.,
August 31, 2007 A.C. No. 6483, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:EN
BANC)
Respondent, with malice and bad faith, due to lust for power
and personal interests, specifically to destroy all her
opponents in the 2010 Chief Justice Race, let herself / her
public office to commit SIN, and / or allowed the prestige of
her position and of the legal profession to be jeopardized;
b. professional indiscretion, violation of oath of office and her
duty as attorney or counselor-at-law, which include the
statutory grounds enumerated under Sec. 27 of Rule 138,
Rules of Court (Arrieta vs. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248), including
grossly unethical behavior, malice and bad faith in the press
conferences, inter alia,
c. grave VIOLATIONS of ---
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
40/86
i. Sec. 20 (a), Rule 138, Rules of Court, including the Canons,
to wit:
Respondent, like all other members of the bar, failed to live
up to the standards embodied in the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility, particularly the following Canons, viz:
CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, norconsent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, orallow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal
processes.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
41/86
the legal system.
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activitiesof the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should
he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
(Promulgated June 21, 1988)
CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,
OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR
LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in
the legal system.
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
42/86
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use
his public position to promote or advance his private
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his publicduties.
CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ANDSUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH
COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING
TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings,
use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper.
CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
43/86
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND
GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consentto the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow
the Court to be misled by any artifice.
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE
RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS
AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
Courts.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives
not supported by the record or have no materiality to thecase.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a
Judge to the proper authorities only.
CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OFHIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH
TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF
INFLUENCING THE COURT.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
44/86
the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public
opinion for or against a party.
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY - CHAN ROBLESVIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
http://www.chanrobles.com/codeofprofessionalresponsibility.
html
in that she miserably failed to be the embodiment of
competence, integrity, and independence; (due to her ardentdesire to be promoted, for power, lust for glory); she did not
behave to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary; she conveyed to the public, an
impression that she was so powerful / in a special position to
influence others; she failed to follow the strict mandates of
Rules 138, Rules of Court, and the Bill of Rights, RULE OF
LAW, and due process;
R.A. 6713, Code of Ethical Standards for Government
Officials --- the ethics and professionalism required of her by
its circulars; Revised Administrative Code of 1987 as
amended, on her oppression, bad faith/malice; The Civil
Service Law, rules and regulations, including the
constitutional mandate that public office is a public trust,
public officers shall serve with the highest degree of
responsibility, integrity, efficiency, xxx. (Businos vs.
Ricafort, 283 SCRA 407).
These violations/acts and omissions of respondent definitely
http://www.chanrobles.com/codeofprofessionalresponsibility.htmlhttp://www.chanrobles.com/codeofprofessionalresponsibility.htmlhttp://www.chanrobles.com/codeofprofessionalresponsibility.htmlhttp://www.chanrobles.com/codeofprofessionalresponsibility.html8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
45/86
show her to be wanting in moral character and probity/good
demeanor or unworthy to continue as officer of the Court, or
unfit or unsafe person to enjoy the privileges of attorneys or
for conducts which tend to bring reproach on the legal
profession and to the High Tribunal, or to injure it in thefavorable opinion of the public. She clearly demonstrated
attitudes and courses of conduct wholly inconsistent with the
approved professional standards, of having failed to live up
to her duties as lawyer in consonance with the strictures of
the lawyers oath, the cited Canons and Codes, thereby
having occasioned unwarranted sufferings, humiliations and
hardships on Magistrates. She was propelled by ill motives
and malicious intentions, coupled with greed and lust forpower or promotion, having failed in conscientiously seeing
to it that justice permeates every aspect of her duties and
profession, in conformity with the avowed duties of worthy
members and officers of the Bar and the Bench.
Locus Standi
1. Complainant is a Filipino Citizen, a taxpayer, and a
registered voter of 123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, Bulacan, his
home and postal address, where he may be served with
court processes, orders and judgments.
2. As a citizen, taxpayer and registered voter, undersigned
has LOCUS STANDI or legal standing to file this case, is an
interested / real party-in-interest and has direct, special and
extra-ordinary interest in the subject matters of this
landmark case.
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
46/86
NATURE, SPECIAL PURPOSE AND TRANSCENDENTAL VALUE
OF THE COMPLAINT; GENERAL, SPECIAL AND DIRECT
INTERESTS OF PETITIONER IN THIS CASE; IRREPARABLEINJURY TO THE NATION / COMPLAINANT/ JUDICIARY
The matter is a delicate one, quite obviously, and must thus
be dealt with utmost circumspection, to avoid any FURTHER
ridicule, attacks and humiliation not only of Magistrates but
the Supreme Court itself. The issues posed by the petition /
complaint transcend the persons of complainant, Justice
Santiago and the specific Supreme Court Justice from the law
firm that respondent accused HELPLESSLY in the media.
These issues affect some of our most deeply held values in
democracy --- the protection of civil and judicial rights, the
tarnishing and perhaps total destruction of the judicial
department/our temples of justice. The petition and
complaint at bar concern all these values. It is the people on
the line. It is we.
3. RIGHT TO INFORMATION: As a citizen, taxpayer and
registered voter, complainant has a constitutional right to
information on all matters of public concern, not the least of
which is the ORCHESTRATED attack of respondent Santiago
upon the 3 or 5 nominees would-be in the 2010 Chief Justice
Race.
EARLY RESOLUTION DEMANDED BY PUBLIC GOOD
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
47/86
4. Until this petition/complaint is finally resolved, the entire
legal profession, the judiciary and the litigants, inter alia,
remain in the dark.
This 22nd PUNO-QUISUMBING COURT must perforce leave us
a 2009-2010 LEGACY OF AND IRON HAND AGAINST merciless
lawyers and powerful public servants, to save not only the
High Tribunal, but to protect and defend a Supreme Court
Justice who is now rendered HELPLESS.
COPIES OF THE NEWS REPORTS ABOVE-QUOTED ARE
ATTACHED AS INTEGRAL PART HEREOF, COLLECTIVELY
MARKED AS ANNEX A.
Article IV Respondents Apology to Chinese Embassy andFFCCCII
Senator apologizes for saying China invented corruption
(3:39 p.m.)
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2007/09/27/senator.apologizes.for.saying.china.invented.corruption.
(3.39.p.m.).html
MANILA -- A senator apologized Thursday for saying China
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2007/09/27/senator.apologizes.for.saying.china.invented.corruption.(3.39.p.m.).htmlhttp://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2007/09/27/senator.apologizes.for.saying.china.invented.corruption.(3.39.p.m.).htmlhttp://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2007/09/27/senator.apologizes.for.saying.china.invented.corruption.(3.39.p.m.).htmlhttp://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2007/09/27/senator.apologizes.for.saying.china.invented.corruption.(3.39.p.m.).htmlhttp://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2007/09/27/senator.apologizes.for.saying.china.invented.corruption.(3.39.p.m.).htmlhttp://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2007/09/27/senator.apologizes.for.saying.china.invented.corruption.(3.39.p.m.).html8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
48/86
"invented corruption" during a heated hearing into an
allegedly overpriced broadband deal Manila signed with a
Chinese company.
"I will write a formal letter of apology to the Chinese
ambassador," Senator Miriam Santiago, head of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters. Santiago,
famous for her mercurial temper, publicly berated China in a
nationally televised hearing Wednesday into a US$330
million (euro235 million) broadband network contract that
was awarded to China's Zhong Xing Telecommunication
Equipment (ZTE) Corp. amid allegations of bribery andoverpricing.
"China invented civilization in the East, but as well it
invented corruption for all of human civilization," Santiago
said Wednesday.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008655510
Mentally and Physically Sick: Chronic fatigue syndrome and
Anorexia
Santiago officially apologizes to Chinese embassy
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008655510http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=91246http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008655510http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=912468/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
49/86
.php?article_id=91246
By Veronica Uy - INQUIRER.net - Last updated 11:56am -
09/28/2007
MANILA, Philippines -- Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago has
officially sent a letter of apology to the Chinese embassy,
saying she suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome, which
might explain her remarks alleging that the Chinese
invented corruption. These are not excuses, but perhaps
they explain why I was not as diplomatic as I should have
been, Santiago said in her letter addressed to Chinese
Ambassador to the Philippines Song Tao. The letter, dated
September 27, started and ended with an apology.
This is to respectfully apologize for whatever offense may
have been caused by my remarks at the Senate hearing
yesterday [September 26] on the proposed RP-China loan
agreementI humbly apologize to you, the Peoples
Republic of China, and the Chinese people. No offense was
intended and I hope none will be taken, she said.
Chinese embassy, Filipino-Chinese group slam Santiago slur
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view_arti
cle.php?article_id=91094
By Veronica Uy, INQUIRER.net, Last updated 05:08 pm
09/27/2007
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=91246http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view_article.php?article_id=91094http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view_article.php?article_id=91094http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=91246http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view_article.php?article_id=91094http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view_article.php?article_id=910948/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
50/86
MANILA, Philippines -- The Chinese embassy in Manila and
the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce
and Industry Inc. (FFCCCII) on Thursday protested SenatorMiriam Defensor-Santiagos anti-Chinese remarks during
Wednesdays Senate hearing on the controversial national
broadband network (NBN) deal.
The protests came even as Santiago, earlier in the day, said
she would apologize to the Chinese embassy for the
comment she made Wednesday when, as the Senate
continued its probe on the allegedly shady contract bagged
by state-owned Chinese firm ZTE Corp. on Wednesday, she
blurted out that the Chinese had invented corruption.
Such kind of comments [are] neither fair nor correct, the
Chinese embassy protested. We believe that the Philippine
government and the people of the Philippines will not agree
to that. It is known to all that anti-corruption is a common
task faced by all the countries of the world. Corruption exists
not only in China, nor was it created by China, the embassy
said. The Chinese government has all along devoted itself
to the building of an honest and clean government and
combat against all forms of corruption, it added. In recent
years, the Chinese government has adopted even tougher
measures in combat against corruption and achieved
prominent results. [We] think people of insight can all seeit.
On the other hand, the FFCCCII demanded an apology in
behalf of ethnic Chinese, not just in the country but also
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
51/86
around the world. While her [Santiagos] outburst may have
been made in the heat of emotion during the ZTE-NBN
probe, the general and sweeping racial slur is directed
against all Chinese and ethnic Chinese around the world,
the FFCCCII said in a statement. In the interest of fair play,we at the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of
Commerce and Industry -- in behalf of all fellow Chinese-
Filipinos -- demand an immediate and unqualified apology
from Senator Santiago, it added. The FFCCCII said it was
taken aback by the irresponsible and insensitive
statements of Santiago against the Chinese.
It said the alleged irregularities in the isolated NBN-ZTE
transaction cannot be the basis of the unwarranted and
regrettable condemnation by the senator. This unfortunate
utterance is all the more deplorable since Senator Santiago
is not only a senator of the republic, but more so, is
chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, the
group said. The federation has more than 50,000 members
in 170 chapters around the country.
Article V Senator Santiago Spit upon the face of C.J.
Panganiban
Article VI Senator Santiago vowed vengeance on JBC,
Supreme Court
Santiago also attacked the members of the bar council as
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
52/86
earthworms
Article VII Senator Santiago called S.C. Justices idiots.
Hurt, furious Miriam vows vengeance on JBC, SC
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/dec/05/yehey/top_
stories/20061205top4.html
Tuesday, December 05, 2006, By Jomar Canlas, Reporter
Voted out of the shortlist of nominees for the post of chief
justice, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago vowed get back at
the Supreme Court and the Judicial Bar Council (JBC) by
slashing their budgets. I am foaming in the mouth, I am
hitting the roof.
Panganiban blamed
JBC sources told The Manila Times that Senior Associate
Justice Reynato Puno and Associate Justice Leonardo
Quisumbing as topnotchers with seven votes each. Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Angelina Sandoval-
Gutierrez got five votes each.
The JBC also shut out Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/dec/05/yehey/top_stories/20061205top4.htmlhttp://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/dec/05/yehey/top_stories/20061205top4.htmlhttp://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/dec/05/yehey/top_stories/20061205top4.htmlhttp://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/dec/05/yehey/top_stories/20061205top4.html8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
53/86
penned the scathing Court decision that junked the peoples
initiative bid of administration allies.
A furious Santiago accused Panganiban of orchestrating herdefeat. She said Panganiban punished her for being a close
ally of President Arroyo.
But she did not offer any proof except to cite the chief
justices closeness to former senator Jovito Salonga, a critic
of the administration.
Santiago then promised to push for a reduction of the
Supreme Courts budget to 2005 levels and that of the JBC to
just P100. JBC member Sen. Francis Pangilinan said the non-
inclusion of Santiago sent a message. I think the judiciary is
not yet open in accepting an outsider, Pangilinan said.
Gonzalez, another JBC member, tried to appease the
senator, saying some members fought for her nomination. The process of arriving at a shortlist was marred by
controversy over the public interviews after the Supreme
Court justices snubbed the JBCs call for public interviews.
Miriam is spurned, hits idiots in tribunal
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?
page=news2_dec5_2006
By Roy Pelovello and Rey E. Requejo
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news2_dec5_2006http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news2_dec5_2006http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news2_dec5_2006http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news2_dec5_20068/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
54/86
SENATOR Miriam Defensor Santiago yesterday accused Chief
Justice Artemio Panganiban of plotting with other Supreme
Court justices to keep her off the list of nominees for his
position when he retires Dec. 7.
Im foaming at the mouth. Im hitting the roof. Im
homicidal. Im suicidal. Im ballistic. I spit in the face of Chief
Justice Artemio Panganiban, she said in a privilege speech
after learning that the Judicial and Bar Council left her off the
short list of nominees. I am not interested in becoming chief
justice if I am going to be surrounded by idiots, she said.
Santiago tore into Panganiban, who sits as chairman of thecouncil, accusing him of spearheading the campaign to
blacklist her for being a court outsider.
There was a plot to disqualify me from the soon-to-be-
vacated post of chief justice on the suspicion that since I am
perceived to be an intimate political ally of the President,
once nominated, I would be appointed... Mr. Panganiban was
the mastermind of this thinly veiled plot to disqualify me. He
and his cohorts want to uphold [the tradition] that no
outsider should be appointed chief justice.
Santiago also attacked the members of the bar council as
earthworms for going along with Panganiban in protecting
a tradition that was nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
I prefer the company of my colleagues in the Philippine
Senate anytime, anywhere, any day, to the company of
those idiots in the Supreme Court, she said. They are idiots
not only in the intellectual but also in the moral sense
[because they are] so devoid of any sense of moral propriety
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
55/86
that they are perfectly capable of voting for self-interest over
the rights protected by the Constitution in favor of other
people.
Santiago described her disqualification as hypocrisy,
naked, and promised to examine the Supreme Courts
funds more closely and to recommend a reduction in its
budget.
If you want a boxing match, Ill oblige. If you want a debate
at Plaza Miranda, thats fine with me too, she said.
Senate Majority Leader Francis Pangilinan said Carpio was
left out because he didnt get enough votes while Santiago
was dropped because she was an outsider.
Miriam hits back, seeks JBC abolition
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?
page=politics02_dec06_2005
At the risk of being accused of sour-graping, Senator Miriam
Defensor Santiago yesterday called for the abolition of the
Judicial and Bar Council by amending the Constitution, and
slashing its budget next year to the minimum.
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=politics02_dec06_2005http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=politics02_dec06_2005http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=politics02_dec06_2005http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=politics02_dec06_20058/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
56/86
Santiago made the proposal after the JBC refused to extend
the period of nomination for the chief justice, but gave the
candidates for ombudsman a wider leeway. Santiago, a
former regional trial court judge, said that technically, the
JBC cannot be abolished because it is created by theConstitution, but Congress can give a warning by slashing its
budget.
Yes, I myself have a personal interest, because I was
nominated for chief justice. My nomination was excluded
because the JBC refused to extend the period of
nomination, Santiago said. But I am acting in good faith,and not out of personal vengeance.
Prior to all these controversies, I already told Senator
Francis Pangilinan, a JBC member, that I will not be
interested in the post of chief justice until my term expires in
2010.
(Hon. Reynato S. Puno Chief Justice , December 7, 2006 -
May 17, 1940 Retirement - May 17, 2010 -Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo)
Santiago also raised suspicions that the JBC could have
unwittingly excluded qualified candidates by calling fornominations on Nov. 4, and imposing a deadline of Nov. 10,
thus, depriving the public to be informed and to prepare
nominations. Under the present system, it is possible for a
Supreme Court justice to support his personal protegs for
appointment to the JBC, and in turn for those protegs to
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
57/86
vote for him as chief justice when a vacancy occurs. That
would be very unhealthy for the judicial system.
Santiago also assailed the decision of the JBC not to subjectto public interviews the three nominees Associate Justices
Reynato Puno, Artemio Panganiban and Leonardo
Quisumbing to the post of chief justice, contrary to the
JBCs own rules. Rey E. Requejo
Senator Santiagos Opponents in May 18, 2010, Midnight:
Hon. Antonio T. Carpio - Associate Justice - October 26, 2001
- October 26, 1949 - October 26, 2019 - Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo
Hon. Renato C. Corona - Associate Justice - April 9, 2002 -
October 15, 1948 October 15, 2018 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Hon. Conchita Carpio-Morales - Associate Justice - September
3, 2002 June 19, 1941 - June 19, 2011 - Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo
Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. - Associate Justice - March 31,2006 - August 8, 1948 - August 8, 2018 - Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo
Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura - Associate Justice -
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
58/86
January 22, 2007 June 13, 1941 - June 13, 2011 - Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Hon. Reynato S. Puno Chief Justice December 7, 2006 May
17, 1940 May 17, 2010 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo]
[Hon. Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez Associate Justice April 12,
2002 December 19, 1940 - December 19, 2010 - GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo]
Article VI Senator Santiagos Agenda: At all cost, Viral
Attack upon the Integrity, persona and candidacy of
ANTONIO T. CARPIO She knows her formidable opponent
I respectfully SUBMIT my evidence to prove that respondent
Santiagos MEDIA attacks upon the Supreme Court Justice of
a BIG LAW FIRM, do have no other purpose but to oust her
bitter rival, at the earliest opportunity, having TASTED her
most painful TWIN defeats over the Highest Judicial Post, in
2005 and 2006.
I borrow from her Senate biography, news and mainly from
MULTI-awarded WikiPedia Encyclopedia, the worlds largest
ONLINE encyclopedia:
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
59/86
Assassination Attempt
Miriam was suddenly victimized in a car crash that remains
unsolved up to the present. On the highway during a
speaking tour, Miriam suffered life-threatening injuries, after
a car rammed her vehicle on the side where she was seated.
Bloodied and unconscious, she was airlifted by helicopter
from Tarlac to Metro Manila and taken to the Metropolitan
Hospital.
Her staff decided not to reveal the true extent of Miriam's
injuries, so as not to prejudice her presidential chances. But
she was completely immobile and could not walk nor even
move her arms. Her facial injuries made it impossible for her
to talk, and she had to communicate by writing. She
underwent surgery, during which she had a near-death
experience.
Personal Tragedy Mental and Physical Health Deterioration
Miriam's husband Narciso Y. Santiago Jr. from Tarlac,
nicknamed "Jun," serves as presidential adviser on revenue
enhancement. Under President Estrada, Jun served as
undersecretary of local government. The couple has two
birth children, Narciso III and Alexander Robert.
Miriam lost her younger son in November 2003. He was only
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
60/86
22 years old and was on the Dean's List at the Ateneo
University. In the years that followed her personal tragedy,
Miriam's irreparable grief manifested itself as a health
failure, including a minor stroke (thankfully without lingering
effects), hypertension, pinched nerves, high cholesterol, andmost recently, unexplained anorexia (an eating disorder)
which caused her to lose weight.
(Biography)
http://www.senate.gov.ph/senators/sen_bio/santiago_bio.asp
---------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miriam_Defensor_Santiago
Talk:Miriam Defensor SantiagoSon's suicide
Perhaps we can add details on the son's suicide death.
Miriam said something about UP Law Professors and
classmates teasing her son about her being crazy or
unhinged. This supposedly drove her son to suicide. She
tried to sue UP but you can ask any UP law student and it'sstandard practice to tuant, tease, initmidate etc. any law
student. It's suppose to prepare them for future law practice.
Responsiblebum 06:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
http://www.senate.gov.ph/senators/sen_bio/santiago_bio.asphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miriam_Defensor_Santiagohttp://www.senate.gov.ph/senators/sen_bio/santiago_bio.asphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miriam_Defensor_Santiago8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
61/86
Answer: The above statement an understatement because
"tease and intimidate" should be replaced by "insulted". It is
not common to "insult people and definitely not common to
insult even members of your family" in an interview. And
yes, I already asked a UP law student in U.P. Precedingunsigned comment added by 202.138.159.4 (talk contribs)
06:09, November 17, 2006 (UTC)
Well I must check with UP on this whether insult is off limits.
From what I know it isn't. Still it is worth mentioning the
circumstances of the son's suicide. Responsiblebum 08:35,
18 November 2006 (UTC)
You can start by making a thorough investigation a)
checking police records/interviews from witnesses b) ask the
family themselves including Miriam c) conduct interviews
from former classmates and professors. Do not rely on
Miriam statements alone as she might be angry at the time
her son committed suicide i.e. her allegations might beunfounded. Then edit this page and cite your sources. The
preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.36.169.226
(talk) 11:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Defensor_Santiago
Miriam Defensor Santiago
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Defensor_Santiagohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Defensor_Santiago8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
62/86
78% Bar RATING, Teacher of Trinity College, Quezon City, 4
years
She earned a Bachelor of Laws, from the University of the
Philippines Diliman in 1969. Her classmates include former
Senate President Franklin Drilon, San Juan Representative
Ronaldo Zamora, and Eli Pamatong. Miriam took the 1969
Bar Exams and received a 78% average grade, to her great
dismay.[3] [4] Her classmates Zamora and Drilon were first
and third respectively, getting high grades, eventually
landing in top law firms. In stark contrast, Santiago ended up
teaching Political Science to undergraduates at Trinity
College of Quezon City.[3]
To bolster her credentials and do over her dismal
performance in the bar exam, Santiago resorted to higher
learning. She attended the University of Michigan Law School
from 1974 to 1976, earning degrees in Master of Laws and
Doctor of Juridical Science.[3]
(Sources: # "Presidential Profiles: Miriam Defensor
Santiago." Probe Team Documentaries. GMA-7. MarchApril
1998.
# ^ Official Records of the Supreme Court Bar Examinations
Committee, Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of
the Philippines, 1969).
Santiago again ran for president in the 1998 elections and
invited fellow Senator Francisco Tatad to be her running
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
63/86
mate. Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino candidate Joseph Estrada
won the election and became president, though Santiago
again made claims of election fraud. After the election,
Santiago returned to the senate.
When she lost in the Senate race of 2001, she worked on
updating her law and political science textbooks, which were
last released 2002.[6]Official Publications List, Central Book
Store, 2002.
A traditional corrupt politician, carrying high levels ofarrogance, greed for power, and opportunism
However, a considerable number of lawyers, academicians,
political analysts, journalists, and activists measure her as a
traditional corrupt politician, carrying high levels of
arrogance, greed for power, and opportunism. She is often
quoted as having described less educated Filipinos as"species of lower life forms"
On January 13, 2001, Santiago and ten other senators voted
against the opening of a bank envelope. The vote ended the
impeachment trial and led to the Second People Power
Revolution which removed Estrada from office.
Senator Santiago announced publicly that "I will jump
headfirst from a helicopter in Luneta if Estrada gets removed
from power" but later recanted and said "I lied".[11]
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
64/86
Santiago ran for reelection in the 2001 elections following
the Estrada's removal, but was not re-elected. It was at this
point in her career that tragedy struck her personal life. Herfavorite son, AR, an aspiring law student, failed an exam and
took his life. His last missive bewailed the peer pressure he
suffered as the son of a notoriously corrupt politician.[12] In
retaliation, Miriam vowed to retire permanently from politics
and devote her time to the persecution of the law school
professors whom she held responsible for her son's suicide.
[13]
In the 2004 elections, Santiago reneged on her vow and ran
again for senator, this time switching to the President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo's K4 coalition and won. She currently
holds the position of chairperson and lone member of the
People's Reform Party. Her office in West Triangle, Quezon
City offers a library of her written books.
Santiago announced her intentions to apply as one of the
possible candidates to fill the post of Supreme Court Chief
Justice Artemio Panganiban upon his retirement in December
2006. Ultimately, the Judicial and Bar Council removed
Santiago from the shortlist of candidates for the position.[14]
Santiago openly criticized the move, questioning the
qualifications of Panganiban and labelling the Supreme Court
an "old boy's club" for not admitting outsiders into their fold.[15] The shortlisting came after all the nominees, save for
Santiago, boycotted a public interview held by the Judicial
Bar Council that aimed to improve the institution's
transparency.[16]
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
65/86
On July 10, 2007, Santiago said that an acquittal of ousted
President Estrada will consequently cast doubts on the
legitimacy of President Arroyos assumption into office. Sheadvised that only a conviction will be to the best interest of
Mrs. Arroyo: If President Estrada is acquitted now, we will
have a dilemma: What then is the status of President
Arroyo? Two, if he is acquitted, the conclusion can only be
that there was no plunder and therefore there was no basis
to remove him from office. What then is the basis of
President Arroyo in the elections (in 2004) that followed after
she was installed (in 2001)? That in itself will create another
legal dilemma,.[17] Further, Santiago accused some
winning senators of having paid their way to office (P200
million is the non-negotiable minimum amount to carry out a
senatorial electoral campaign which is simply unethical).
Health - Chronic fatigue syndrome and anorexia
On September 28, 2007, Miriam Defensor-Santiago stated
that she is sick of chronic fatigue syndrome. [25] (CFS) is
highly debilitating disorder marked by chronic mental and
physical exhaustion, often severe, and by other specific
symptoms, arising in previously healthy and active persons.
[26] She also suffered from Anorexia (symptom), thedecreased sensation of appetite (disorders that cause
(harmful) anorexia include anorexia nervosa, severe
depression, cancer, dementia, AIDS, and chronic renal failure
and the use of certain drugs, particularly stimulants and
narcotics. Environmentally induced disorders such as
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
66/86
altitude sickness can also trigger an acute form of anorexia.
Anorexia may also be seen in congestive heart failure,
perhaps due to congestion of the liver with venous blood).
Jurisprudence
I begin by referring to the authority of the Supreme Court to
discipline officers of the court and members of the Bar. The
Supreme Court, as regulator and guardian of the legal
profession, has plenary disciplinary authority over attorneys.
The authority to discipline lawyers stems from the Court's
constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice
of law, which includes as well authority to regulate the
practice itself of law. Quite apart from this constitutional
mandate, the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court
over members of the Bar is an inherent power incidental to
the proper administration of justice and essential to an
orderly discharge of judicial functions. Moreover, the
Supreme Court has inherent power to punish for contempt,
to control in the furtherance of justice the conduct of
ministerial officers of the Court including lawyers and all
other persons connected in any manner with a case before
the Court. The power to punish for contempt is "necessary
for its own protection against an improper interference with
the due administration of justice," "(it) is not dependent
upon the complaint of any of the parties litigant.
It has been held that contempt of court is a defiance of theauthority, justice or dignity of the court, such conduct as
tends to bring the authority and administration of the law
into disrespect. It signifies not only a willful disregard or
disobedience of the courts order but such conduct as tends
to bring the authority of the court and the administration of
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
67/86
law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due
administration of justice. (Abad v. Somera, G.R. No. 82216,
July 2, 1990, 187 SCRA 75, 84-85.)
Contempt in facie curiae / 4 years Suspension of RAUL
GONZALEZ
On 9 February 1988, petitioner Zaldivar filed with the Court
a Motion to Cite in Contempt 11 directed at respondent
Gonzalez. The Motion cited as bases the acts of respondent
Gonzalez in: (1) having caused the filing of the informationagainst petitioner in Criminal Case No. 12570 before the
Sandiganbayan; and (2) issuing certain allegedly
contemptuous statements to the media in relation to the
proceedings in G.R. No. 80578. In respect of the latter,
petitioner annexed to his Motion a photocopy of a news
article, reproduced here in toto, which appeared in the 30
November 1987 issue of the "Philippine Daily Globe:"
Tanod Scores SC for Quashing Graft Case
TANODBAYAN Justice Raul M. Gonzalez said yesterday theSupreme Court order stopping him from investigating graft
cases involving Antique Gov. Enrique Zaldivar can aggravate
the thought that affluent persons "can prevent the progress
of a trial."
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
68/86
What I am afraid of (with the issuance of the order) is that it
appears that while rich and influential persons get favorable
actions from the Supreme Court, it is difficult for an ordinarylitigant to get his petition to be given due course. Gonzalez
told the Daily Globe in an exclusive interview.
Gonzalez said the high tribunal's order "heightens the
people's apprehension over the justice system in this
country, especially because the people have been thinking
that only the small fly can get it while big fishes go scot-
free."
Gonzalez was reacting to an order issued by the tribunal last
week after Zaldivar petitioned the court to stop the
Tanodbayan from investigating graft cases filed against him.
Zaldivar had charged that Gonzalez was biased in his
investigations because the latter wanted to help promote the
political fortunes of a friend from Antique, lawyer Bonifacio
Alentajan. Acting on Zaldivar's petition, the high court
stopped Gonzalez from investigating a graft charge against
the governor, and from instituting any complaint with the
Sandiganbayan. While President Aquino had been prodding
me to prosecute graft cases even if they involve the high
and mighty, the Supreme Court had been restraining me.
Gonzalez said.
In accordance with the President's order, Gonzalez said he
had filed graft cases against two "very powerful" officials of
the Aquino government-Commissioner Quintin Doromal of
the Presidential Commission on Good Government and
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
69/86
Secretary Jiamil I.M. Dianlan of the Office of Muslim Affairs
and Cultural Communities. While I don't wish to discuss the
merits of the Zaldivar petition before the Supreme Court, I
am a little bit disturbed that (the order) can aggravate the
thinking of some people that affluent persons can preventthe progress of a trial, he said.
He disclosed that he had a talk with the Chief Executive over
the weekend and that while she symphatizes with local
officials who are charged in court during election time, 'She
said that it might be a disservice to the people and the
voters who are entitled to know their candidates.
Gonzalez said that while some cases filed against local
officials during election time could be mere harassment
suits, the Constitution makes it a right of every citizen to be
informed of the character of tile candidate, who should be
subject to scrutiny. (Emphasis supplied)
The power to punish for contempt of court does not exhaust
the scope of disciplinary authority of the Court over lawyers.
The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the
Bar is but corollary to the Court's exclusive power of
admission to the Bar. A lawyer is not merely a professional
but also an officer of the court and as such, he is called upon
to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing justice
and resolving disputes in society. Any act on his part which
visibly tends to obstruct, pervert, or impede and degrade theadministration of justice constitutes both professional
misconduct calling for the exercise of disciplinary action
against him, and contumacious conduct warranting
application of the contempt power.
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
70/86
It is sometimes asserted that in the exercise of the power to
punish for contempt or of the disciplinary authority of the
Court over members of the Bar, the Court is acting asoffended party, prosecutor and arbiter at one and the same
time. Thus, in the present case, respondent Gonzalez first
sought to get some members of the Court to inhibit
themselves in the resolution of this case for alleged bias and
prejudice against him. A little later, he in effect asked the
whole Court to inhibit itself from passing upon the issues
involved in this proceeding and to pass on responsibility for
this matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, upon the
ground that respondent cannot expect due process from this
Court, that the Court has become incapable of judging him
impartially and fairly. Respondent Gonzalez misconceives
the nature of the proceeding at bar as well as the function of
the members of the Court in such proceeding.
In Salcedo v. Hernandez, Atty. Vicente Francisco filed a
Motion before the Supreme Court which contained the
following paragraph (in translation):
We should like frankly and respectfully to make it of record
that the resolution of this court, denying our motion for
reconsideration, is absolutely erroneous and constitutes an
outrage to the rights of the petitioner Felipe Salcedo and a
mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls in themunicipality of Tiaong, Tayabas. We wish to exhaust all the
means within our power in order that this error may be
corrected by the very court which has committed it, because
we should not want that some citizen, particularly some
voter of the municipality of Tiaong, Tayabas, resort to the
8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC
71/86
press publicly to denounce, as he has a right to do, the
judicial outrage of which the herein petitioner has been the
victim, and because it is our utmost desire to safeguard the
prestige of this honorable court and of each and every
member thereof in the eyes of the public. But, at the sametime we wish to state sincerely that erroneous decisions like
these, which the affected party and his thousands of voters
will necessarily consider unjust, increase the proselytes of
sakdalism and make the public lose confidence in the
administration of justice. (61 Phil. at 726; emphasis supplied)
When required by the Court to show cause why he shouldnot be declared in contempt, Atty. Francisco responded by
saying that it was not contempt to tell the truth. Examining
the statements made above, the Court held:
... [they] disclose, in the opinion of this court, an inexcusable
disrespect of the authority of the court and an intentional
contempt of its dignity, because the court is thereby chargedwith no less than having proceeded in utter disregard of the
laws, the rights of the parties, and of the untoward
consequences, or with having abused its power and mocked
and flouted the rights of Attorney Vicente J. Francisco's
client, because the acts of outraging and mocking from
which the words 'outrage' and mockery' used therein are
derived, means exactly the same as all these, according to
the Dictionary of the S