MANILA, Philippines (ENS) – Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory Ong was dismissed by the Supreme Court Tuesday, becoming the first Sandigabayan justice to be dismissed since the anti-graft court was created in 1978.
In a vote of 8-5, the high court decided to dismiss Ong from the service for lying, showing “corrupt inclinations” and “fraternizing” with alleged pork barrel scam queen businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles whom he acquitted in 2010 on bribery and corruption charges. This was in connection with Napoles’ anomalous sale of 500 Kevlar helmets in 1998 to the Philippine Marines.
Ong, 61, was found guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty and impropriety by the high court, and dismissed him immediately, removing his retirement benefits “except for accrued leave benefits” and banning him from seeking reemployment “in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.”
The high court found that Ong’s visits to Napoles’ office after the Sandiganbayan’s Fourth Division which he now presided had acquitted her of the case highly inappropriate for a magistrate. He was then a member of the division when it cleared Napoles of the charges in 2010.
It upheld previous recommendations of a fact-finding investigation led by retired SC Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, into administrative allegations against Ong.
With this decision, the Supreme Court took a stand that “judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities” citing the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
“The court found that Justice Ong’s act of voluntarily meeting with Napoles at her office on two occasions was grossly improper and violated Section 1, Canon 4 (propriety) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct,” SC spokesperson Atty. Theodore Te said.
The cited section says “judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.”
“The court emphasized that a judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial and that fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this appearance. It also stressed that the rule on propriety extended even beyond the time that a judge had already ruled on a pending litigation,” said Te, citing the ruling.
“…[I]t does not matter that the case is no longer pending when improper acts were committed by the judge. Because magistrates are under constant public scrutiny, the termination of a case will not deter public criticisms for acts, which may cause suspicion on its disposition or resolution,” said the high court.
Ong’s visits to Napoles were first disclosed by pork barrel scam witnesses Benhur Luy and Marina Sula last year in their testimonies before the Senate which was then investigating the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)
Luy and Sula also testified that Ong was in contact with Napoles while his division heard graft and malversation cases against the businesswoman, her husband and several others for the delivery of subpar Kevlar helmets to the Philippine Marines worth P3.8 million in 1998.
Luy said Ong visited Napoles’ Ortigas office in 2012, receiving 11 checks amounting to P3.10 million after the Sandiganbayan’s fourth division had acquitted Napoles and her associates in the bribery and malversation charges related to the Kevlar helmet sale. Luy made the testimony before the Senate blue ribbon committee on Sept. 26, 2013,
Sula also recalled how Napoles told her staff that she had a contact in the Sandiganbayan, and assured them that they should not worry about possible legal cases on their involvement in the PDAF kickbacks.
Gutierrez’s findings, upheld by the high court, said the two witnesses were credible as their testimonies were given “in a candid, straightforward and categorical manner” and that their statements they gave to her was consistent with the ones they made before the Senate.
“Their testimonies were instantaneous, clear, unequivocal and carried with it the ring of truth,” the high court said.
It also found Ong guilty of dishonesty under Canon 3 (integrity) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct because of his alleged untruthful statements on matters even before the administrative complaint was filed against him.
While the high court noted that evidence against Ong was “insufficient to sustain the bribery and corruption charges,” it “found credible evidence of Ong’s association with Napoles.”
Ong’s visits to Napoles’ office, it said, made the the public to suspect that there was an anomaly in the Sandiganbayan’s decision-making process with regard to Napoles’ case filed before Ong’s division.
It said the “totality of the circumstances of such an association strongly indicates Ong’s corrupt inclinations that only heightened the public’s perception of anomaly in the decision-making process.”
In administrative proceedings, the high court said it needs only “reasonable ground” through evidence that is “substantial… or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” The tribunal released a summary of its ruling on Tuesday.
In full court Tuesday,, eight of the SC justices voted to approve the ruling which they had jointly wrote. They are Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Associate Justices Carpio, Arturo Brion, Mariano del Castillo, Martin Villarama Jr., Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic Leonen and Francis Jardeleza.
The five who dissented were Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco, Lucas Bersamin, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza and Bienvenido Reyes.
Two justices — Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro and Diosdado Peralta— abstained since they previously served at the Sandiganbayan before they were appointed to the high court.
The high court also noted that Ong had previously breached court rules and ethics and was “no longer fit to remain as a magistrate of the special graft court.” He had been fined P15,000 before for violating revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan. This was after he had allowed the holding pf separate hearings in Davao City in violation of rules.
Ong had previously written to Chief Justice Serreno to explain himself and deny charges of wrongdoing after the Senate hearing where he was implicated in the pork barrel scam.
In his letter then, he said that while he was not required to explain, he wanted to “defend the reputation and protect the Sandiganbayan as an institution from unfair and malicious innuendoes.”
Te said Ong can still appeal the SC’s decision, although this was immediately executory.
The SC said Ong’s actions could not be considered as a simple misconduct as his association with Napoles had dragged the judiciary into the pork barrel scam controversy which previously involved only officials from the legislative and executive branches of government.
Malacanang has welcomed the news about Ong’s dismissal.
“We share the advocacy of the Chief Justice, as well as the other justices, who would like to further advance judicial reform by improving the current system and investigating allegations of judicial misconduct,” deputy presidential spokesperson Undersecretary Abigail Valte told reporters in a press briefing on Tuesday.
Justice Ong has not yet issued a statement on his dismissal. (Eagle News Service)
