a.m.# 07-09-13-sc

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:






8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC

8/86


investigations whenever we receive complaints, but we

would really appreciate if these complaints would state in


begin the investigation at some point. He lamented thatsuch allegations could be bandied about in the media and




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.


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.


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,


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,



Retired Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza, (Personal

Service)

No.3, Aster St., Fairview, Quezon City



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



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.


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.



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


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.


(Rm. 521-A 5th Flr., GSIS Bldg., Financial Center, Roxas

Blvd., Pasay City)

Respondent.

X--------------------------------------------------------------------X




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

====================================

====================================

========


Office of the Bar Confidant



Complainant,

- versus - A.C. NO. _______

For: Disbarment (Rules 138, 139-B, Rules of Court) and GrossMisconduct.


(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




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







investigations whenever we receive complaints, but we

would really appreciate if these complaints would state in


begin the investigation at some point. He lamented that

such allegations could be bandied about in the media and




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=90689

8/3/2019 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


.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=94030

8/3/2019 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_2007

8/3/2019 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



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=90447

8/3/2019 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=88889005

8/3/2019 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.htm

8/3/2019 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


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


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.html

8/3/2019 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.).html

8/3/2019 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://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=91246

8/3/2019 A.M.# 07-09-13-SC

49/86


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=91094

8/3/2019 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.html

8/3/2019 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


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_2006

8/3/2019 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


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_2005

8/3/2019 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_Santiago

8/3/2019 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_Santiago

8/3/2019 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

a.m.# 07-09-13-sc

Documents