MANILA, Philippines—Legal experts Sunday urged the Supreme Court to punish those involved in an alleged bribery attempt at the Court of Appeals, and a law dean warned public loss of faith in the judiciary could give rise to political messiahs with adventurist agendas.

They said the bribery scandal had given the judiciary a black eye and called on the high court to take a firm stand on the issue.

The Supreme Court called an en banc session on Tuesday to look into the actions of some members of the second highest court in the land and could discipline those found to have erred.

“When we lose order in society, adventurism will come in, self-righteous groups might emerge,” University of the East Law Dean Amado Valdez said. “This will be an opportunity for messianic personalities to come in. [As of now], we haven't reached that stage.”

Valdez said in a phone interview it would be “very bad” if the people stopped believing in the judiciary as an institution because of the scandal.

“The public will think, where else can we go? There will be a complete breakdown of order,” he said.

Last resort

According to Valdez, there is order in society because people believe in impartial institutions to resolve conflicts, and the courts are their last resort.

If confidence in public institutions is eroded, some parties might take advantage of this, he warned.

Still, Valdez thinks most of the members of the judiciary remain faithful to their oath, especially with Chief Justice Reynato Puno instituting reforms.

The controversy hounding the Court of Appeals broke out after Justice Jose Sabio Jr. reported to CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez that he was offered P10 million by an emissary of Manila Electric Co. to inhibit himself from a case filed by Meralco against the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), and pave the way for Justice Bienvenido Reyes to chair the division that eventually ruled on the case.

The court case stemmed from a failed attempt by the GSIS to take control of the power utility during Meralco’s annual stockholders meeting in May.

Firmness needed

Sabio was chair of the division that heard the case and refused to recuse himself. Later, another division handed down the ruling, which favored Meralco. Sabio criticized the circumstances of that decision as “fishy” and “quite disturbing.”

Following Sabio’s allegations, businessman Francis de Borja came out and said he had talked with Sabio, who supposedly told him that he (Sabio) had been offered by the government a “promotion to the Supreme Court and money” to rule in favor of the GSIS.

De Borja, a friend of Meralco chair Manolo Lopez, also claimed that Sabio mentioned “P50 million” as the amount of money that would make him reject the government offer.

Sabio said De Borja’s claims were all lies.

‘People get away with it’

Neri Colmenares, who heads the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, said the high court should be relentless in going after court employees and officials involved in anomalies and must take a “firm” stand on the bribe controversy.

“They should not stop there. They should continue penalizing [erring court officials]. The problem with the justice system is that people get away with it. There are crimes because nobody is prosecuted,” Colmenares said.

He said the justice system in general lacked credibility and the bribery allegations “add one more nail in the coffin of the justice system.”

Valdez said the scandal had given the judiciary “a black eye” and that it “confirmed a lot of rumors about chamber practices in the judiciary.”

He said Sabio was correct to blow the whistle on the alleged bribery attempt.

The law dean, however, thinks investigation of reports of corruption and other anomalies should have been done quietly to protect the judiciary as an institution.

“The parties should be investigated, but the institution should be protected,” he said.

Judges also accountable

Valdez also said the controversy had cast doubt on the appellate court’s decision favoring Meralco, which he said he personally believed was a good one.

But he said it was not only the decision that must be correct.

“The process should be correct. The judge or justice decided it on purely legal grounds,” he said.

Another lawyer, Leonard de Vera, said investigations of complaints against judges and justices should be open to the public to make the magistrates more accountable to the people.

He pointed out that investigations of public officials in the Department of Justice or Congress had been done publicly, and the same should be followed for judges and justices.

“The integrity of a judge is no more important than the integrity of a public official,” De Vera said, adding that magistrates were also public officials whose salaries were paid for by the people.