Friday, March 07, 2008 SC decides not to act on charges of graft vs. CA justices based in Cebu By Karlon N. Rama Sun.Star Staff Reporter
IT WAS expected to be a ruling on three administrative issues on alleged corruption at the Court of Appeals (CA) station in Cebu City.
Instead, 15 Supreme Court (SC) justices sitting en banc focused on the need to reorganize the appellate court and impose a stricter rule on reassignments. The court issued the 15-page ruling last Feb. 22.
The ruling stops the practice of justices signing a waiver when reassigned either via promotion or transfer to another station like Manila or Cagayan de Oro.
On the subject of justice for sale to litigants, all the ruling said is that the allegations all pertain to actions taken by trial courts in pending cases.
These, according to the ruling, are “subject to review” in the “proper judicial proceedings prescribed by the Rules of Court” and “not in an administrative investigation.”
Crusade Against Violence-Visayas (Cavv) chairperson Thelma Chiong, who sent one of the three letters that led to the administrative docket, lamented the SC ruling.
“It is as if they didn’t investigate the matter thoroughly. They are just like those other government agencies that merely transfer officials involved in anomalies. There is no real judicial change this way,” she told Sun.Star Cebu.
Displacement
A court official, who asked not to be named, described the ruling as “non-responsive” to the subject of the docket.
The official said the SC’s failure to deal with the subject of the complaints deprived the associate justices of the station of the opportunity to present evidence that the charges really didn’t have basis.
Besides, the official added, none of the three letters raised the need for reorganizing the appellate court.
“All this does is ensure the displacement of those associate justices who want to stay in their present posts because it allows them to remain close to their families,” the official added.
Chiong, in her letter to Chief Justice Reynato Puno, reported that justice was for sale at the appellate court and that she has received a lot of information about it.
Rosendo Germano, who sought the abolition of the Cebu CA Station, joined her by writing the Chief Justice separately to complain about the CA’s allegedly “erroneous dismissal” of a Leyte case. In that case, he said, “money did much of the talking.”
Positions
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Fortunato de Gracia wrote the third letter to the SC, endorsing a newspaper report on the same subject.
The SC, based on the ruling, referred the three letters to then CA Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes for comment.
Justice Reyes required the CA justices stationed in Cebu and Cagayan de Oro to submit their own positions.
The justices from Cebu—Arsenio Magpale, Isaias Dicdican, Pampio Abarintos, Agustin Dizon, Antonio Villamor, Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla, Francisco Acosta and Stephen Cruz—denied the charge and challenged the complainants to identify the allegedly corrupt justices in the proper channels.
That way, they said, only the corrupt, if any, will be compelled to account for their actions.
“This will also spare innocent justices, as well as the entire Philippine judiciary, from unjust criticisms,” they said.
The justices from Cagayan de Oro, through Executive Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores, agreed.
Name names
They asked that the matter be endorsed to the Office of the Court Administrator who will then “encourage litigants to come forward with their evidence and to name names.”
On the issue of abolition of the CA stations, they said Republic Act 8246 facilitated the creation of the stations. The stations cannot be abolished without first repealing the law, they said.
It was Reyes who raised the need for reorganization.
In a comment last July 10, Reyes wrote how “the prolonged stay of some justices in the station (is) making it possible for them to develop special affiliations with local politicians and influential people.”
“Arguably, there is nothing inherently objectionable in being friendly to the local officials and influential personages... (they) ought not to forget that they must not only be impartial but must strive not to appear partial or beholden to anybody,” Reyes said.
Reyes then sought the views of justices in the CA Station in Manila, where 17 appellate court divisions are based. They came up with options and cast votes on which to recommend.
They want the status quo maintained, with all justices remaining where they are now assigned, adding that “the evil sought to be avoided and addressed by a reorganization of the division) was no longer in existence and that proper measures had been taken and put in place.”
In making its decision, the High Court noted that justices can only resort to a waiver if they are being transferred from “where they ought to be” and not to block a reassignment.
“Accordingly, we find compelling reason to set aside the amendment to Sec. 9, Rule 1 of the (Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals) which institutionalizes the waiver of the place of assignment or station of the CA justices,” the SC said.
“The Court resolves to approve the recommendation of the Court of Appeals to maintain the status quo in the places of assignment of the incumbent members of the said court, provided that, henceforth, no waivers... shall be allowed unless approved by the Supreme Court,” it added.
