MANILA, Philippines—The chair of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Tuesday said that a lawyer of the husband of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and concurrent officer of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) had called him up to ask for help in its case against Manila Electric Co. (Meralco).

Testifying before a panel that the Supreme Court created to look into improprieties at the Court of Appeals (CA) in connection with the Meralco case, Camilo Sabio identified the lawyer of First Gentleman Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo as Jesus I. Santos, a member of the board of trustees of the GSIS.

The PCGG chair said it was Santos’ phone call that prompted him to get in touch with his brother, Court of Appeals Justice Jose Sabio Jr., to seek the latter’s assistance in the case.

But the PCGG chair said there was nothing unethical about him phoning his younger brother under the “peculiar circumstances” of the case in which, according to him, the GSIS has taken up the cudgels for the people suffering from Meralco’s actions.

Camilo Sabio said Santos called him up on May 30 to inform him that the Meralco petition had been raffled off to the division that included Jose and that a temporary restraining order was being prepared.

Request for help

Santos “requested me to help,” the PCGG chair said.

Later, Camilo said Santos did not tell him to call up his brother, but he acknowledged that it was “understood.” He also believed that the “consequence” of Santos’ statement was for him to get in touch with his brother.

Camilo said Santos was right to seek his assistance because the controversial case involved the “long-suffering public” and the monopoly that is Meralco.

The Philippine Daily Inquirer tried to contact Santos through his cell phone and landline at his law firm in Makati City and his office at the GSIS building, but failed to reach him.

Whistle-blower

Justice Sabio had blown the whistle on the alleged P10-million bribery attempt by a supposed Meralco emissary to inhibit himself from the case. The allegation was denied by Francis de Borja, who surfaced after feeling alluded to.

De Borja earlier said Justice Sabio had told him about being offered a Supreme Court seat and money to favor the GSIS stand, and naming P50 million as his price to reject the GSIS offer. The justice denied De Borja’s allegations.

Jose Sabio and another CA justice, Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, had protested their being unceremoniously ousted from the case even though they had heard the oral arguments on the matter. Jose Sabio was chair of the division that presided over the hearing.

Do something legitimate

Upon questioning, the PCGG chair said he only explained to his brother the rightness of the GSIS stand, but did not say anything about the merits of the case.

Camilo said he did not ask his brother to do something illegal. “I said ‘help if you could do it legitimately,’” the PCGG chair said.

He also claimed that he did not ask his brother to vote in favor of the GSIS. “I did not ask him to vote for the government. If the government has no case, that’s it,” he said.

Camilo said Jose had told him that the temporary restraining order (TRO) in Meralco’s favor had been signed, and that the magistrate would vote according to his conscience.

Jose was acting chair of the appellate court’s 9th Division that granted the TRO in favor of Meralco on May 30.

The TRO was served only minutes after the Securities and Exchange Commission adjourned a hearing during which Meralco was asked to explain its defiance of an SEC cease and desist order directing Meralco to set aside the unvalidated proxy votes of the Lopez family in the election of officers of the firm in May.

Reorganization

The GSIS argued that the election of the Meralco board was tainted by illegitimate proxies and asked that the proxy votes in favor of the Lopezes be invalidated.

Sabio and CA Justice Bienvenido Reyes, the regular chair of the 9th Division, had a squabble about who should continue presiding over the hearings when Reyes returned from a vacation leave.

Following a reorganization at the CA, the final decision on the case was rendered on July 23 by the 8th Division, chaired by Reyes. The 8th Division upheld Meralco’s argument that the SEC had no jurisdiction over the issue.

Peculiar circumstances

The PCCG chair said it was only the “peculiar circumstances” of the case that prompted him to call his brother.

Camilo said it was not his habit of calling up people to influence them to act one way or another. “In this unique situation, I believe I was right and I stand by it even if I have to go to jail again,” he said.

But retired Justice Romeo Callejo, a member of the panel, wondered whether Camilo’s call to Jose constituted lobbying.

“So, when you talked to your brother, what were you doing? Were you not lobbying for the non-issuance of the TRO? You were influencing him, were you not?” Callejo asked.

Camilo said he was not, because he considered lobbying differently. Upon questioning by the panel chair, retired Justice Carolina Griño Aquino, Camilo said lobbying was done by people who perform actions for money.

Code of responsibility

In response to questions from panel members and Vitaliano Aguirre, lawyer of Reyes, Camilo said he did not think that his act violated the lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility.

Neither did he violate the Revised Penal Code provision that prohibits executive officers from making suggestions to judicial authorities in relation to any case, Camilo said.

When Aquino pointed out that the Code of Professional Responsibility stated that lawyers should not attempt to influence or give the appearance of influence to other people, Sabio said the provision could not have applied to the case.

Exception to the rule

Another panel member, retired Justice Flerida Ruth Romero, then observed that Sabio was making the Meralco-GSIS case an exception to the rules on ethics and the law.

“I’m really struck by the fact that this case seems to stand out as an exception … to which you justify everything you were doing or saying … even it were going beyond the line of legality or ethics,” Romero said.

Romero added that she was “bothered anyhow by your concept of what’s wrong and right, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical, proper or improper.”

Camilo insisted that his actions did not go beyond the law or legal ethics, and that it was up to his brother to act on the basis of law.

Hypocrites

Camilo also noted that it was a reality that people talk to judges and justices to get favorable rulings on their cases, even if this was prohibited by law or code of ethics.

“If we follow strictly the law or the code, if we say that, we’re hypocrites,” he said.

Callejo replied that he was “shocked” by Sabio’s statements and pointed out that “if people tried to bribe you, that is a crime and you could arrest them.”

But the PCGG chair said he did not have to arrest anyone because he would just refuse the offer. “That’s the difference between us,” Callejo said.

Filipino culture

Jose also spoke out in relation to the issue, saying that in Philippine culture, brothers talked. He said it would be more surprising if he said that he and his brother could not have possibly discussed the Meralco-GSIS case.

Jose said there was nothing improper about his brother calling him up and presenting to him arguments that might be useful, adding that his brother had never tried to influence him.

Dangerous

But this did not sit well with Callejo, who wondered whether the reliance on Filipino culture was “dangerous.”

Callejo said it took strength of character for Jose to disclose to the panel that his brother had called him up, but still questioned his defense of the call.

“For you to rely on Filipino culture and say it’s natural for a brother to call up a brother who is a justice, that bothers me,” he said.

Callejo also wondered who would argue for the other party, if a brother of a justice was allowed to call him up in relation to a case.

“Imagine, if a brother will call you up, is that all right? You lecture to judges and students. Is that proper?” he asked.

Jose stood by his statement. “I will be a hypocrite if I will not say what I just said, but if I will suffer the consequences, so be it,” he said.