Convicted governor wants Sandigan justice out of his case
Oriental Mindoro Gov. Alfonso Umali Jr. has sought the inhibition of a Sandiganbayan justice from hearing his motion to overturn the 10-year prison sentence the antigraft court meted out to him in connection with a graft case.
Umali, also the treasurer of the ruling Liberal Party, was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan’s Fourth Division of violating Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for his role in facilitating a P2.5-million loan the provincial government granted to a private ship owner in 1994.
In his motion for inhibition, Umali accused Associate Justice Jose Hernandez, Fourth Division chair, of prejudice in favor of the prosecution after the clerk of court allegedly told Umali’s lawyers on May 8 the court was no longer going to hear his motion to reverse its April 20 verdict.
He said the court official also told his lawyers that Hernandez, who had written the 37-page decision finding Umali guilty, would not allow them to file a reply to the petition filed by the state prosecutors questioning Umali’s motion for reconsideration.
“This… gave accused Umali and his lawyers the impression that (Hernandez) was biased in favor of the prosecution and that he intended to hastily resolve or deny (Umali’s appeal) without giving him an opportunity to refute first the prosecution’s arguments in its opposition,” said Umali’s 16-page motion dated May 28.
“Considering that (Hernandez) does not appear to be impartial, accused Umali respectfully requests that he take the noble course and strive for his higher calling to uphold the integrity of, and promote faith, in the courts, and accordingly recuse himself and voluntarily inhibit from further hearing and handling the… case,” the motion said.
In seeking Hernandez’s voluntary inhibition, the governor also assailed the justice for asking questions of defense witness Manolo Brotonel during the hearing of Feb. 10, 2011, which were “more adversarial and confrontational than clarificatory.”
Umali said the magistrate’s actions gave him the “impression that he was taking up the cudgels for the prosecution.”
“(Hernandez) cannot be expected to act in an impartial and unbiased manner in handling the instant case. He might be an impartial justice. However, he does not appear to be impartial or beyond any suspicion of bias in favor of the prosecution,” Umali said.
Umali reminded Hernandez that a judge should “put the greater interest of the courts first and above his own” and that his “battle cry must be to protect the integrity and reputation of the courts.”
