Supreme Court grants clemency to magistrate over misconduct

By Jomar Canlas Senior /Manila Times

The Supreme Court (SC) has granted judicial clemency to a Sandiganbayan magistrate who was found administratively liable for misconduct after he was charged by a prosecutor from the Office of the Ombudsman for violating the Rules of Court when he tried a case separately instead of deliberating it as part of a collegial body.

This was after the high court, sitting en banc, ruled to downgrade the fine of 15,000 pesos to 10,000 pesos against Sandiganbayan Acting Presiding Justice Gregory Ong and chairman of Sandiganbayan’s Fourth division.

In a five-page resolution of the tribunal dated February 19, 2013, signed and promulgated by Clerk of Court Enriqueta Vidal, the tribunal granted Ong’s plea for forgiveness from the court in order to give him a chance to advance his career or pursue a promotion.

Ong is eyeing the position of Sandiganbayan presiding justice in view of the upcoming retirement of Presiding Justice Francisco Villaruz who will turn 70 in June. Under the Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council, a judge or justice is disqualified from applying for promotion if his penalty exceeds P10,000.

Ong was already appointed by then president and now Rep Gloria Arroyo of Pampanga province, as an associate justice of the High Court, but his appointment was rejected by the court en banc in light of petitions questioning his Filipino citizenship.

“The court grants the reiterative plea for judicial clemency dated December 21, 2012 of Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory Ong only with respect to the penalty of fine; and reduces the penalty of fine from P15,000 to P10,000, subject to the continuing warning that a repetition of the same or similar offence shall be dealt with more severely,” the court resolution stated.

The court has granted the prayer of Ong after a re-examination was done by the tribunal. “Firstly, the assertion that neither malice nor bad faith attended his commission of administrative offence appears to be true. Secondly, he has served in the government for nearly 26 years, devoting 19 years of that time in the judiciary, with no bad record to mar his long service except this one offence,” the High Court pointed out.

The court justices also believed Ong’s sincerity as reportedly shown by his humility after admitting his guilt.

“His humble acknowledgement of his administrative guilt reflected his sincere contrition and of his inadequacy in guiding his colleagues in the division that he chaired, on a course that collided with the regular procedure for his court. And, lastly, his full acceptance of the liability and its concomitant penalty as justly determined and appropriate under the circumstances of the case confirmed his realisation of the extent of his offence. The conglomeration of such circumstances now spurs the court to view his reiterative plea for judicial clemency with benevolence and understanding,” the court added in its resolution.

The tribunal en banc opined: “The court is not only a court of Law and Justice, but also a court of compassion. The court would be a mindless tyrant otherwise.”

It also clarified that Ong is not asking for a total judicial clemency because “if he does, the court will not hesitate to ignore his plea one more time.”

An earlier High Court ruling penalised Ong with a fine of P15,000 for conduct unbecoming of a public officer.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Assistant Special Prosecutor  Rohermia Jamsani-Rodriguez.

Rodriguez accused the three Sandiganbayan justices who were members of the Sandiganbayan’s Fourth Division of violating the Rules of Court and falsification of public documents. She claimed that while he was in Davao, Ong tried a case on his own while the two other justices of the division heard other cases. Among these were cases that Rodriguez was handling. She argued that it is contrary to the Rules of Court because Sandiganbayan justices should act as members of a collegial body. Upon instructions from the then Special Prosecutor, she manifested her continued objections to the arrangement, allegedly drawing the ire of the justices.

Ong and another justice of the Sandiganbayan division denied the allegations. They argued that while they tried cases separately, they had ensured that there was a quorum because all three of them were present in Davao City, preserving the collegial nature of the division as required by the Rules of Court.

The tribunal, however, rejected the argument, saying that the ability of the Fourth division to function as a collegial body became impossible when not all the members were together during the trial.

The High Court pointed out that it is necessary that there should be an equal participation in the trial and adjudication of their cases.