The Daily Tribune <<< Without Fear or Favor >>>

»HEADLINES

»NATION

‘Regular’ SC litigant faces contempt raps

By Benjamin B. Pulta

12/13/2008

The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered a “regular” litigant to show cause within 10 days why he should not be cited for contempt for writing an undated letter criticizing the tribunal for its “leak decision” and circulating the same with the unpromulgated ponencia.

In a three-page en banc resolution, the SC dismissed as baseless the allegations of one Louis Biraogo, the petitioner in Biraogo v. Nograles and Limkaichong in GR No. 179120 which is still pending with the high court. The petition questions the qualification of Representative-elect Jocelyn Limkaichong because of the issue of citizenship.

In 2005, Biraogo also figured in an SC case which was decided against him, at the time in connection with a restaurant he put up in Davao City which was owned by DM Consunji.

Biraogo’s latest woes started when he circulated his undated letter and an unpromulgated ponencia in GR No. 179120 which was supposedly signed by all justices, except Chief Justice Reynato Puno.

In his undated letter, Biraogo claimed “the said decision was dated July 15, 2008 but what is irregular and maybe anomalous is that it was not promulgated until now. In fact what is questionable is an oral argument conducted on Aug. 26, 2008 despite a decision already made on July 15, 2008.”

The SC created an investigating committee to be headed by Senior Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, with Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, chairman, Third Division, and Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, working chairman, First Division, as members to investigate the unauthorized release of the unpromulgated ponencia of Justice Ruben Reyes to determine who are responsible for this leakage of confidential internal documents of the en banc and to recommend to the en banc the appropriate actions thereon.

“The unpromulgated ponencia of Justice Reyes, which has not been signed by the Chief Justice, is part of the confidential internal deliberations of the court. No copy of the unpromulgated ponencia can be released to any person outside of the en banc. Any release of a copy to the public, or to the parties, of an unpromulgated ponencia infringes on the confidential internal deliberations of the court and constitutes contempt of court,” the SC said.

The court noted that while Biraogo’s accusations “are seemingly directed only against the Chief Justice, they actually impute impropriety on the other members of the en banc for allowing or condoning the acts allegedly attributed to the Chief Justice.”

It stressed that “(t)hese public accusations by a party litigant in pending cases before this court obstruct the orderly and fair administration of justice and impair the public confidence in judicial functions.”

Biraogo claimed he had received proof that a decision had been reached by the high court on the matter as early as July of this year .

A copy of the supposed draft decision signed by all SC magistrates, except Chief Justice Reynato Puno, was given to newsmen by Biraogo who claimed the decision is proof that a decision had been reached by the tribunal but had been suppressed to allow an oral argument in the case to proceed.

The document entitled “for concurrence” also lists the case as “Item No. 52” in the “Agenda of July 15, 2008-12-01.”

“God knows what will happen to this country if a simple case as this is being manipulated, how much more the governance of the country under him,” Biraogo said, adding it is his “suspicion that the Chief Justice may have a hand in this irregularity because apart from him being the only one who did not sign the decision, I was likewise informed that he was the one who prodded the members to hold an oral argument.”

Biraogo said the lawyer who argued for Limkaichong was a close fraternity brother in the Alpha Phi Beta of Puno, Dean (Pacifico) Agabin.

He added it is highly suspicious that Agabin was hired despite the fact that Linkaichong already had a lawyer by the name of Pete Quadra who is certainly not a push-over.

“Furthermore, another fraternity brother, a junior assistant in the Solicitor General’s Office, Renan Ramos, also appeared and argued favoring Limkaichong instead of defending the Comelec which he is obligated to represent. All these circumstances led me to believe that the Chief Justice may have been dishonest in his dealings being the highest magistrate of the land and may prejudice the faith of our people in the judiciary.” Biraogo said.

State lawyers pleading before the SC in oral arguments last September said Limkaichong’s proclamation on May 25, 2007 is valid and legal because the Commission on Elections (Comelec) has no jurisdiction to rule on the validity of her father’s acquisition of Filipino citizenship through naturalization proceedings in 1959, according to the Office of the Solicitor General.

In a 37-page memorandum, Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera said the Comelec’s disqualification of Limkaichong as congressional candidate in the 2007 election did not attain finality because the poll body had no jurisdiction to declare that her father did not validly acquire Filipino citizenship.

Limkaichong, who ran and won under the banner of the administration Lakas-CMD Party, won by a majority of 7,746 votes over her next rival Olivia Paras, and fewer than 40,00 votes over the third placer, former Rep. Jerome Paras. Olivia is the wife of former Rep. Jacinto “Jing” Paras, while Jerome is a brother of Jacinto.

The Solicitor General said the disqualification case filed before the Comelec against Limkaichong “involves a collateral attack on the citizenship” of her father, Julio Sy Ong. She explained that “an attack is indirect or collateral when done in an action to obtain a different relief.”

In the case of Rep. Limkaichong, the attack is indirect as the petitioners wanted to disqualify her from assuming her post, and not strip her father of his Filipino citizenship.

The OSG pointed out that an attack on a person’s citizenship may only be done through direct action for nullity as allowing a collateral attack would violate the principle of due process.

According to Devanadera, only the OSG and not the Comelec has the authority to cancel naturalization certificate as fixed by Section 18 of the Commonwealth Act 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law “upon motion made in the proper proceedings by the Solicitor General or his representatives, or by the proper provincial fiscal.”