Sandigan justice Ong hits trial by publicity

Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory Ong: Untruthful and misleading reports. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines–Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory Ong on Thursday blasted the Inquirer for its exclusive reports on his Supreme Court-ordered investigation for fixing a graft case involving Janet Lim-Napoles, the alleged brains behind the P10-billion pork barrel scam.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno ordered the investigation in January and retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, who carried out the probe, recommended that Ong be found guilty of gross misconduct, dishonesty and impropriety and be ordered dismissed.

Breaking his silence since the Inquirer broke the investigation story last month, Ong, chair of the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division, issued a six-page statement saying the reports subjected him to “trial by publicity” and were published in “wanton violation” of his rights.

Ong also decried the release of the confidential investigative report of Gutierrez, which was submitted to the Supreme Court on May 15.

“I deplore in the strongest possible terms the untruthful and misleading reports on the matter coming out [of] the Philippine Daily Inquirer,” Ong said.

Napoles’ ‘contact’

Gutierrez’s investigation found that Ong allowed himself to be Napoles’ “contact” in the Sandiganbayan and that he accepted money from her to acquit her, her husband, retired Army Maj. Jaime Napoles, and several ranking military officials in the P3.8-million Kevlar helmet case in 2010.

Gutierrez said Ong’s “serious transgressions impaired the image of the judiciary” to which he owed loyalty and had the “obligation to keep it at all times above suspicion and worthy of the people’s trust.”

She said the Supreme Court “will not hesitate to rid its ranks of undesirables.”

Citing court sources, the Inquirer reported on Wednesday that Supreme Court justices were deliberating on the penalty to impose on Ong—whether dismissal or suspension—with 12 justices believing he was guilty.

(Two other justices, formerly of the Sandiganbayan, inhibited themselves from the decision.)

Preempting court ruling

That report angered Ong, who decried how it preempted a formal ruling from the Supreme Court.

“To date, the Supreme Court has not made any ruling on my case, which is still pending deliberation,” he said.

Ong cited the confidentiality of Supreme Court deliberations, stressing that the proceedings “should not be presented to the public.”

He said the Inquirer “unfairly and untruthfully” presented the information from the deliberations as “already the actual verdict or decision of the Supreme Court on the matter.”

“[R]eports coming out [in] the Inquirer are brazenly misleading the people and generating adverse reaction from the public … when, in truth and in fact, no such decision has been reached by the Supreme Court even up to this time,” Ong said.

He said Gutierrez’s investigation results were “only recommendatory” and that the findings “cannot in any truthful way be equated to the factual findings and eventual disposition that the Supreme Court would make on my case.”

Ong also denounced the release of the 34-page report of Gutierrez, saying the release of such a confidential report was illegal.

“The disclosure or premature release of Justice Gutierrez’s report to the media and the public at large is patently illegal and is even considered a serious criminal offense,” Ong said, citing the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

He invoked Section 3(k) of the law (Republic Act No. 3019), which brands as a corrupt practice the act of “divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by [a public official’s] office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.”

“Being private and confidential, that report should not have been released to just anyone, even to the media, and the Inquirer should not have disseminated its contents to the public, as the same is intended only for the exclusive use of the Supreme Court,” Ong said.

He did not discuss the merits of the case, although saying “the urge for me to answer back” had become “almost unbearable.”

Ong said he deferred to the Supreme Court’s directive that “proceedings against justices of the Sandiganbayan shall be private and confidential.”

“Though I issue this statement, I stop short of attempting to refute such allegations and claims, as published by the Inquirer, not because I am not willing or capable of refuting them, but because this is not the proper forum for me to do so,” he said, adding that court rules barred him from discussing the case.

Ong emphasized that the Inquirer “clearly and knowingly violated” the judicial confidentiality rule.

Fairness and balance

He appealed to the media for fairness and balance and to await the final word from the Supreme Court.

“I … most respectfully request the media to be fair and balanced, to respect confidential judicial deliberations by not misrepresenting as ‘facts’ matters that have not been decided upon by the Supreme Court, to obey laws and rules protecting the confidentiality of certain processes and proceedings, to report only the truth and established facts, not mere surmises, rumors and speculations, and finally, to patiently wait, as I do, for the proceedings against me to rightfully conclude when a decision thereon is finally promulgated by the Supreme Court in due time,” Ong said.

RELATED STORIES

Justice Ong on guilty report: ‘Untruthful and misleading’

Pro-Napoles justice guilty