Was the chief justice biased?
Bobby NalzaroI PERSONALLY don’t know the four Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) judges who were placed under indefinite preventive suspension by Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno, but I can only sympathize with their fate. Again, I have to reiterate my stand that they are victims of injustice by their own “unjudicial system.”
I think when Chief Justice Puno sent a judicial audit team here to conduct a full dress investigation on the alleged “marriage scam” that takes place in various MTCC and Regional Trial Courts (RTC) salas at the Palace of Justice, he was already determined to discipline the four judges: Anatalio Necessario, Gil Acosta, Egemelo Rosales and Rosabella Tormis.
Yes, it was swift and decisive but also a pre-judged action on the part of the chief justice. Meaning, there was already that bias against the four. The so-called investigation was just a “muro-muro” so the chief justice would have basis to place them under preventive suspension.
Take note of the events: Puno was informed of the alleged “marriage scam” when he was attending a forum in one of the universities here. I was informed that a consul said citizens from the country he represents who marry Filipinas are the frequent victims of some of the unscrupulous judges who asked exorbitant fees from the couple, using their court personnel as fixers. The letter of Judge Donato Navarro also triggered the investigation.
The next thing we knew, Puno ordered the indefinite preventive suspension of the four judges without the benefit of giving their side. Okay, there is no quarrel that preventive suspension is not a penalty. It is done to deny respondents of any access to documents and records of the case and to avoid influencing possible witnesses.
There are several RTC and MTCC salas at the Palace of Justice, but how come that only four judges were suspended? Was it because of the discrepancies in the records on the solemnization of marriages? What about those questionable documents? We are not interested in the number of questionable solemnization. What we want is, who made money out of these marriages? What about Navarro and RTC Judge Geraldine Faith Econg, who were also believed to have conducted questionable solemnization?
Puno did not suspend Navarro because he was the whistleblower in this scam? What about Econg? Is it because the judicial audit team temporarily held office in her sala? Can the chief justice impose administrative sanction against erring judges on his own or should it be the Supreme Court (SC) en banc being a collegial body? But how come Puno acted on it swiftly when there was even no recommendation from the judicial audit team?
Lawyer Rullyn Garcia, head of the team, claimed that all judges were investigated. Now, if they were investigated, how come they were not also placed under suspension so they won’t have access to court records? Puno should have treated this issue fairly and not on a selective basis. What about the judges in Lapu-Lapu, Mandaue and in some municipalities who were also investigated? Don’t tell me that nobody committed the same questionable conduct.Again, I support the SC’s move to cleanse our judiciary of its misfits and scalawags, especially those “hoodlums in robe.” But before Puno could start it in the provinces, he should clean first his own backyard. We have been hearing reports that temporary retraining orders are for sale, even in the High Tribunal and in the Court of Appeals. What about the judges in Metropolitan Manila? Are they more ‘Popist than the Pope’ compared to their counterparts in the provinces? Come on.
