Sandiganbayan Justice to beat up colleague if…

A SANDIGANBAYAN Associate Justice denied the bribery allegation against his colleague Associate Justice Jose Hernandez, who is facing a grave misconduct complaint before the Supreme Court.

In an interview with reporters on Thursday, Associate Justice Samuel Martires questioned why Oriental Mindoro Governor Alfonso Umali only floated the idea now after he was convicted of graft for an anomalous loan to a private ship owner.

He lamented the practice of accusing the justices of bribery when the accused did not get a favorable ruling from the court.

“Bakit ngayon ka lang nagrereklamo? Ano yun, afterthought?… There is nothing on record na nago-object sila (during the trial). So ibig sabihin, masaya na sila nun. Bakit ngayon ka lang magrereklamo?” Martires said.

He said if the allegations against Hernandez would be proven true, he would beat up the beleaguered magistrate.
“(Justice Hernandez) is one of the justices I respect, one of the justices closest to me. Nirerespeto ko siya bilang malinis na mahistrado. Kung mapatunayan na siya ay tumanggap ng pera, patunayan nila, at bubugbugin ko sa harapan nila si Justice Hernandez,” Martires said.

He said he does not care even if Umali holds a powerful position as treasurer in the ruling Liberal Party.

“I don’t care what political party Umali belongs All we care about is to dispense of the evidence,” Martires said.

In his complaint before the Supreme Court, Governor Umali accused Justice Hernandez of asking for P15 million in exchange for an acquittal of his graft case.

Umali said he refused. He was eventually convicted to up to 10 years in prison by the Sandiganbayan for graft over the illegal grant of a P2.5 million loan from the public coffers to a private ship owner for private use when he was provincial administrator in 1994.

Governor Umali said a certain Ruel Ricafort approached them to ask for a bribe. Umali said Ricafort is the cousin of Justice Hernandez’ wife.

Justice Martires said it is a “falsity” that the alleged envoy is a relative of Umali’s wife, who is a political science professor in the University of the Philippines.

“Kahit sinong tao na kurutin ka, makakadama ka ng sakit. Kung damay ang pamilya mo, hindi ba mas masakit yun?” Martires said.

Martires appealed to the public to read the records of Umali’s case instead of judging the antigraft court.

“We have to do our work. We should not be affected by these accusations. Ang pakiusap ko lang sa taumbayan, basahin ninyo ang desisyon namin, tingnan niyo ang ebidensya na inipresenta,” he said.

In its ruling penned by division chairman Justice Hernandez, the antigraft court Fourth Division  said Umali and then Governor Rodolfo Valencia acted in bad faith when they granted the loan from the provincial coffers to private ship owner Alfredo Atienza.

“In this case, the court finds that the accused acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith…. (They) entered into a contract that is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government,” the court said.

“This court cannot condone acts or omissions that greatly diminish the standard of public accountability. Otherwise, it will be tantamount to laying the groundwork fertile for graft and corruption,” it said.

“That public funds should not be used or applied for a private purpose is a fundamental rule in fiscal administration. This limitation was violated by the accused when they granted the loan for the repair, maintenance and operation of Atienza’s vessel,” the court also said.

The Supreme Court had sacked one of the magistrates in the Sandiganbayan for grave misconduct last September 2014.

Gregory Ong, who then chairs the antigraft court’s Fourth Division, was dismissed by the Supreme Court for his close links to accused pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles. Ong had been accused of attending parties or social events hosted by the businesswoman.

Ong was also accused of being Napoles’ alleged contact at the Sandiganbayan following his ruling acquitting the businesswoman over the Kevlar helmet case.

The Supreme Court dismissed Ong after he was found guilty of “gross misconduct, dishonesty and impropriety”.

Voting 8-5-2 or eight in favor of Ong’s dismissal, five against and two abstentions, the high court in a per curiam (by the court) decision said: The “totality of the circumstances of such association strongly indicates (Ong’s) corrupt inclinations that only heightened the public’s perception of anomaly in the decision making process.”