MANILA, Philippines—Retired Supreme Court Justice Ruben Reyes Tuesday said he and his staff had been questioned by a court panel looking into the leak of his draft decision on an election dispute, and declared he had nothing to hide.

In an interview with the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Reyes emphatically denied that he or his staff was the source of the leak and said he would not tolerate the release of a still unofficial ruling.

Reyes had penned the unpublished decision nullifying the 2007 proclamation of Negros Oriental Rep. Jocelyn Limkaichong. Its unauthorized release sparked criticisms against Chief Justice Reynato Puno and led to reported moves for his ouster as head of the country’s highest court.

“I was there during the first hearing (of the investigating panel). Three of my staff were also investigated,” Reyes said on the phone.

“We are ready to face any investigation. We will not hide anything,” he added.

Senior Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing chairs the committee investigating the release of the un-promulgated decision to determine who was responsible. The panel held its first two hearings before the Christmas holidays.

The panel’s members include Associate Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Antonio Carpio.

‘Not from me’

“I did not and will never release that draft. It did not come from me and I will not tolerate it if it came from my staff,” Reyes said.

The Reyes ruling was signed by 14 of the court’s 15 justices. Puno, while concurring with the ruling, did not sign it.

The draft decision upheld an earlier ruling by the Commission on Elections nullifying Limkaichong’s proclamation, which had been disputed by her defeated rival, Olivia Paras, who claimed Limkaichong was not a natural-born Filipino. Limkaichong’s father was originally a Chinese.

The leaked document was used as a basis by businessman Louis Biraogo to question Puno’s integrity. It was Biraogo—one of the petitioners against Limkaichong’s incumbency as a lawmaker on account of her citizenship—who released a copy of the draft ruling to the media.

The Supreme Court has said that the Reyes ruling was not promulgated because nine of the 14 justices who signed it explained they were concurring “only with the result.”

Questions for Puno

Biraogo Tuesday claimed Puno had more questions to answer following Reyes’ statement that all justices of the high court had initially concurred with his decision on the Limkaichong case.

“The implication of this revelation by Justice Reyes is mind-boggling. People are now asking whether someone or something had caused nine of the 14 justices to suddenly qualify their concurrence to the Reyes’ ponencia,” Biraogo said.

He said he was not afraid to go to jail for exercising his constitutional right to free speech.

“But I believe I will only go to jail if we’re under a dictatorship. I have full confidence that democracy still reigns in our country,” Biraogo said.

“But if that’s the price, so be it,” he added.

‘Just a piece of paper’

Reyes said Biraogo’s claim that “a concerned employee” had left a copy of the draft decision and other court documents at the gate of the Biraogo residence in Laguna showed that the purported employee “is not a member of the court.”

“Mr. Biraogo should face the court to prove his allegation,” Reyes said.

Reyes agreed that his draft decision was not valid even with 14 signatures.

“Unless promulgated, that’s just a piece of paper,” he said.

Reyes said that he did not take it against his former colleagues in the Supreme Court that his draft decision was not promulgated.

“It’s (nothing) personal to me,” Reyes said.

Court explains

The Supreme Court en banc Tuesday took up the issue of the leakage. But the results of its deliberations were not immediately known.

Reyes said it was “unfair to criticize the Chief Justice” for not promulgating the Limkaichong ruling, adding: “It’s the decision of the whole court.”

As narrated in a court resolution dated last Dec. 10, the justices decided to withhold the promulgation of the draft because nine justices concurred only “in the result.”

With majority of the justices concurring only “in the result,” the justices decided that the decision would have no doctrinal value and decided to withhold the promulgation pending further deliberations.

“More importantly, any decision ousting a sitting member of the House of Representatives should spell out clearly the legal basis relied upon by the majority for such extreme measure,” the court resolution said.

Previous cases

Biraogo, in his answer explaining why he should not be cited for contempt, cited several Supreme Court decisions that he said were promulgated even with less than a majority concurring with the draft decision.

He mentioned the case of the League of Cities vs Commission on Elections that declared several statutes unconstitutional with a vote of just six against five.

“The said ruling is manifestly non-doctrinal for lack of required votes but it still got promulgated,” Biraogo said.