Justice For Sale

Tuesday, March 6, 2007

TROs ‘for sale’ in Court of Appeals

By Jomar Canlas, Reporter POLITICAL and administrative cases decided by the Office of the Ombudsman are now one of the primary sources of corruption and temporary restraining orders “for sale” in the Court of Appeals, a CA justice told The Manila Times. The magistrate, who talked on condition of anonymity, said the rulings of Ombudsman Maria Merceditas Gutierrez on preventive suspensions and dismissals have turned into one of the main sources of “business” in the CA. In the past, all administrative cases were decided by the Supreme Court until it issued a ruling in the case of Fabian v. Desierto that all such cases decided by the Office of the Ombudsman shall be reviewed only by the CA through petitions for certiorari. The justice said the minimum price for a TRO is P1 million. The price rises, depending on the influence of the personalities involved. The price gets steeper for a package deal that includes a TRO, injunction, decision and resolution in a motion for reconsideration. The Office of the Ombudsman’s decisions and resolutions that get elevated to the CA for certiorari, the justice said, “become juicy since the personalities involved are high ranking government officials, politicians who failed in the lifestyle check.” Police their ranks Chief Justice Reynato Puno wants the justices of the CA to police their own rank, fight corruption zealously and put an end to the TROs-for-sale business. Jose Midas Marquez, the Court’s public information chief, said the Chief Justice his magistrates they themselves should watch their own ranks and combat corruption. Last Thursday afternoon Puno summoned the 17 chairpersons (most senior members) of the appellate court stationed in Manila and expressed his alarm over the notoriety of some CA justices and employees. The Chief Justice was apparently angered by the negative reports he has been receiving about corruption in the CA. “Let them resolve this issue among themselves, and conduct an immediate investigation,” Puno was reported to have said. The Times source said that the TROs-for-sale racket has become rampant in the CA, overturning the traditional principle that “not to issue a TRO is the general rule and to issue is the exception.” The trend in the appellate court is “to issue a TRO is the general rule and not to issue is the exception.” CA Committee on Ethics CA Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes told The Manila Times that he has tapped the CA Committee on Ethics to accept complaints against justices and employees who are reportedly engaged in corrupt practices. The Committee on Ethics is chaired by Justice Marina Buzon, with Justices Amelita Tolentino and Aurora Lagman as members. “I have referred the complaints received to the Committee on Ethics to check the veracity of the information,” Reyes said. He asked The Times to let people know that those who cannot send their complaints openly may give them directly to him. “If there is any incident of corruption I want to receive the report even in a confidential nature. But of course, it should be supported by evidence,” he said. Reyes said that “it is not necessarily bad to issue a TRO, but what is bad is when there is monetary consideration.” He even urged fellow magistrates and employees to join hands in saving the appellate court and build it from its ruins. Cebu CA open for investigation The justices of the CA in Cebu (Visayas), raised a howl and vehemently denied that they were engaged in corruption. Interviewed over the phone, CA Cebu Executive Justice Arsenio Magpale said that there is not an iota of truth to the complaints against them offering TROs for sale. Magpale said the whole Cebu CA and every justice are ready to be investigated because their conscience is clean. Another CA magistrate in Cebu, Justice Francisco Acosta, said that after the news in The Manila Times broke about corruption in the appellate court in Cebu, each of them is now wondering who among the nine justices are engaged in corrupt activities. Manila Times

Imelda Marcos Acquitted by Sandiganbayan

Why the Sandiganbayan took 13 years to acquit former First Lady Imelda Marcos? What's going on anti-graft court? The Sandiganbayan had lost its credibility for its turtle-slow handling of high profile cases.





MALAYA NEWS BY PETER TABINGO

IMELDA Romualdez Marcos was acquitted of a 13-year-old graft case by the Sandigan-bayan Fifth Division yesterday.

"Thank God, thank God. I survived 20 years of relentless persecution. Justice has prevailed," Marcos said in between sobs.

Marcos has 10 more graft cases at the Fourth Division.

The Presidential Commission on Good Government had filed 68 criminal charges against her, 35 before the Sandiganbayan and the rest before the Manila court.

The courts previously dismissed 14 of the cases while prosecutors withdrew nine graft indictments.

Also exonerated was Jose Conrado Benitez.

Marcos and Benitez were accused of conflict of interest for holding positions in the Technology Resource Center Foundation Inc. (TRCFI), a private corporation, when Marcos was minister of human settlements and Benitez was her deputy.

The court held that the foundation was a "non-stock and non-profit" entity, hence there was no conflict of interest. Although TRCFI made investments in real estate by leasing lands and building and selling townhouses, the court said the money raised did not go into the pockets of foundation officials.

Defense witness Arthur Aguila had told the court that the funds went into such projects as raising hybrid tilapia and researching alternative power sources in rural communities.
"The foundation cannot be held to have been in the realty and housing businesses as charged. As disclosed by evidence, it had technology transfer projects as its principal concern or occupation, basically aimed at addressing human settlement issues," the court held.

"The essential elements of the offense charged have not been proven, the projects in question not being ‘businesses’ in contemplation of law," it added.

Marcos said her acquittal was based on the merits of her defense and not due to some favors from the administration.

"I believe in the courage and integrity of our courts," she said.

Known for her fashion sense, Marcos was in a purple terno highlighted by a silk floral scarf, with emerald brooch and earrings. She was accompanied by lawyers Robert Sison and Benjamin Santos and two personal medical attendants.

Marcos appeared tense and refused to grant interviews before the start of the hearing. She just nodded and smiled when asked by media on how she was feeling.

When the verdict was read, her supporters in the audience applauded as Marcos wept.

Marcos went straight to the nearby St. Peter’s parish church on Commonwealth avenue, Quezon City, where she offered prayers, recited the rosary and kissed the icon of St. Peter.

Marcos was found guilty of corruption in 1993 and was sentenced to 24 years in jail for her alleged role in anomalous deals involving the construction of a mass transit system in Manila but the Supreme Court reversed that decision in 1998.

On her birthday on June 2, 1991, a New York court also found her innocent on racketeering charges. – With Reuters

In 20 Years Since Marcos, Little Stability for Philippines