“(P)roven facts and circumstances constitute more than substantial evidence which reasonably points to Justice Reyes, despite his protestations of innocence, as the source of the leak.”
by Ducky Paredes
The advice one gets when starting out on a career is quite clear: “Rule number one: The boss is always right. Rule number two: When the boss is wrong refer to rule number one!”
It is not surprising at all that the Supreme Court ordered retired Associate Justice Ruben Reyes to pay a fine of P500,000 after it found that he leaked a decision that was never promulgated by the SC and thus was never a Supreme Court decision. It is right for the SC to do this. After all, its justices should not have any undue interest in the cases before it. That a justice would go out of his way to embarrass the Court, after his retirement, make that justice a suspicious figure. Did he have any pecuniary interest in the result?
Reyes, who has ten days to appeal the decision, says:
“I have the least reason to do that and the least motive (to leak the document). I’m totally innocent. I can’t believe they are holding me responsible.
“I would not want a single centavo deducted from the pay that I deserve. Tignan muna natin and if I have to file an MR (motion for reconsideration) I will do it.”
Reyes stands on soft ground. After all, the SC had the leak investigated and the committee –Senior Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, chairman and Renato Corona and Conchita Carpio-Morales, members –even went so far as to recommend that Reyes be indefinitely suspended as member of the Bar for gross misconduct:
“As applied to the case of Justice Reyes, a breach of duty amounts to breach of public trust as the committee believes that the leak was motivated by self-interest.
“To the members of the committee, the foregoing proven facts and circumstances constitute more than substantial evidence which reasonably points to Justice Reyes, despite his protestations of innocence, as the source of the leak.”
Reyes actually provided the final proof that led to his undoing. When asked for a copy of the decision, he produced a copy, which did not match page one of the committee’s copy but matched Page 1 of the leaked copy of the draft decision.
Reyes offered no explanation on the perfect match and even retorted defiantly: “Why should I?”
The copy of the committee from the archives of the Court had footnotes and asterisks noting that two magistrates, Dante Tinga and Adolfo Azcuna, were on official leave. This was not in the copy presented by Reyes.
This is the first time that the SC has found any of its justices guilty of grave misconduct.
Two others were forced to retire for what looked bad at the time but which look like misdemeanors in comparison.
One claimed authorship of a decision written by outsiders; another failed to disclose that a relative was taking the Bar examinations of which he was chairman.
* * *
Why did so many in the Senate and the House go after the World Bank when it could have taken the easier route of taking official notice of the report, then asking the justice department, the ombudsman and the department of finance to find out the truth behind the report. That way, the World Bank naming presidential spouse Jose Miguel Arroyo as a participant in the rigging of biddings for WB-funded road project would not have been become world news.
The World Bank, left to itself, will not go out of its way to talk about how countries steal from their own people. Thus, when it sent a report to the Ombudsman 15 months ago that a “cartel” of local and foreign contractors, assisted by public works officials and two “public figures,” had been colluding in bidding for contracts. This led to a blacklisting of the contractors in WB-funded projects.
The “public figures” were the President’s husband and the late Sen. Robert Barbers.
By being over-protective of Mike Arroyo, Senator Miriam Santiago prodded the WB to come out in the open to brief the Senate. Now, the question is: What will the Senate do with this information. It certainly cannot ignore it; but can it actually go after Atty. Juan Miguel Arroyo? Does it actually dare to even think about this?
As for the WB being called to give further information on the colluders or the collusion, no one in the country has the power to force the WB to do anything. The WB is protected by the United Nations and an in-country agreement (wherever it operates) that its officials have close to what could be considered as diplomatic immunity.
* * *
I honestly feel that it is pretty stupid to simply reprise old arguments (earthquake zone, corruption, Marcos, overprice) in deciding whether or not we ought to go nuclear in providing electricity to our country. The best thing would be for the scientific community to do a thorough study of the matter. When they have finished with that, then, let the politicians and others take on the issue.
Without first vetting the issue properly on the scientific and technological level, how can our politicians rule with any factual basis on the issue?
* * *
A reader asks: “Isn’t the DILG Usec, Mel Rosales, not Morales? Or is there a Mel Morales in DILG?”
Of course, the reader is right. Sorry, Mel. I was in Davao playing golf when I wrote the column and must have hit “M” instead of “R” which is of course so far apart on the keyboard that such a lame excuse is unbelievable. My apologies to Mel and my readers.
# # # #
hvp 02.26.09)
Post a Comment