Raps vs FG’s lawyer over CA bribery possible

August 27, 2008

The Supreme Court may include First Gentleman Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo’s lawyer Jesus Santos among those charged for trying to influence some justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) over the controversial board battle in electricity giant Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) based on the dictum of “principal by inducement,” a legislator said yesterday.

Santos was implicated by Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) chairman Camilo Sabio as having undue interest in resolving the case in favor of the government camp in the Meralco case led by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).

Senate Majority Leader Francis Pangilinan raised the possibility of Santos’ implication in the case in reaction to an admission on radio by Santos that he made a phone call to PCGG chairman Sabio, even as some of his colleagues from the administration bloc maintained that no law was violated.

Sabio admitted that he asked his brother, CA Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr. not to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the Meralco board election case brought before the GSIS.

In a TV interview, Santos, who is also a member of the board of trustees GSIS, said he

called Sabio to ask for his help in the Meralco case “on behalf of the members of the GSIS”.

Santos said he was duty-bound to protect GSIS members’ interests as a member of the board of the state pension fund. GSIS is a major shareholder in Meralco.

“The First Gentleman (FG) has nothing to do with this. FG doesn’t interfere in governance,” Santos said.

Makati Mayor and United Opposition (UNO) president Jejomar Binay, however, said the phone call made by Santos to PCGG Chairman Sabio showed a “clear attempt” by Mrs. Arroyo’s husband to influence the CA.

“It is hard to imagine Atty. Jesus Santos acting on his own or even on behalf of the GSIS. He is the First Gentleman’s lawyer and he is not known for doing things without the approval of his principal client,” he said.

“It would also appear that the Arroyos have made their quarrel with the Lopezes personal, hence the effort of Mike Arroyo to influence the CA,” he added.

In his testimony Tuesday, the PCGG chairman told a special Supreme Court panel that Santos had asked for his help in the case involving the GSIS and Meralco. The PCGG head is the brother of CA Justice Jose Sabio Jr., who was part of the CA division handling the Meralco case.

The high tribunal created the panel to probe possible improprieties in the CA’s handling of the case.

Binay said the PCGG chair appears to be withholding more details of his talk with Santos.

“We appeal to Sabio to tell all he knows regarding this apparent attempt to influence the Court of Appeals. If there will ever be an opportunity for him to redeem his name, then this is the opportunity,” he said.

The opposition leader added that Sabio’s statement confirmed UNO’s position that the attempt of the GSIS to take over Meralco was not intended to bring down power rates but an attempt to oust the Lopez family from the company “for political reasons.”

Mrs. Arroyo herself issued a strong statement against Meralco, and Binay said it was intended to deflect public attention from the rice crisis and the mismanagement of the power sector.

Pangilinan said Santos could be included in the charged through “principal by inducement” if it can be proven that he tried to influence another public official to put pressure on a Justice on the outcome of a court decision or in conspiring to commit corruption or bribery either under the Revised Penal Code or Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, unless the latter satisfactorily explains himself on this matter.

“He should be made to explain himself before the investigating body. If it will be proven that indeed he tried to convince the brother of Justice Sabio to influence the outcome of the decision, he could be charged alongside the PCGG chairman or worse, he could be the one accused of principal by inducement.

“If he comes up with an unacceptable explanation, the Supreme Court should throw the book at him and all other lawyers who are at fault in this scandal,” the senator said in an interview.

“So whatever the case is, he should be summoned by the SC, anyway he, like all other lawyers, is under the supervision of the high court and if he comes up with an unacceptable explanation, he should be disciplined by the SC,” Pangilinan stressed even as he called on Malacañang to explain its latest implication in the bribery issue.

Matters of unethical conduct, criminal offenses can carry with it the administrative penalty of disbarment, the senator added, noting the call made by colleague, Sen. Panfilo Lacson on having the PCGG chief and Mr. Arroyo’s lawyer being barred from practicing their profession due to the charges being made against them.

“What was the role of Santos in this issue? What was his motive? Who was he representing? Given that he is the First Gentleman’s lawyer, it would be best for Malacañang to come forward and explain whether or not Santos was acting on behalf of the President’s husband,” he said.

“Santos should be called to explain his side before any proceedings be made against him. He should be made to explain why he was asking (PCGG’s) Sabio to try and influence the brother Justice Sabio. If his acts were true, these are unethical acts and must be addressed by the Supreme Court,” he added.

It is settled in jurisprudence that the relation of attorney and client is founded on principles of public policy, on good taste, Pangilinan said.

The question is not necessarily one of the rights of the parties, but as to whether the lawyer has adhered to proper professional standard. The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoins lawyers to act with highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of the practice of law. A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity as public confidence in law and lawyer may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar, the majority leader further explained.

“The Supreme Court has supervision over all lawyers and justices who were involved in this shameless influence peddling and unethical acts must be disciplined. Now is an opportune time to clean up the practice of law in this country by going all out against justices, judges and lawyers who by their acts are ruining and undermining the system of justice,” he said.

Lacson, reacting to Santos’ defense, issued a challenge to prove his sincerity by having his alleged hefty P500,000 salary as director of GSIS donated to the public, including his allowances.

Lacson retaliated at Santos’ claims that the opposition is behind the charges against him, reminding the lawyer of Mr. Arroyo that the issue stemmed from the PCGG’s testimony before the investigating body handling the CA scandal.

“When the time comes a criminal case is filed and there will be more evidence of bribery or attempted bribery, he can be held liable alongside (PCGG’s) Sabio because the two of them (allegedly tried to) influence…or possibly tried to commit graft. But criminal offense should first be established,” he said.

Senators Loren Legarda and Richard Gordon sided with Pangilinan and Lacson on the issue.

“For me, the case should be dealt with in full transparency and accountability, ” said Legarda.

“He’s (Santos) liable and it could even be anti-graft case and there’s someone who could stand as a witness against him. He has a lot to explain,” Gordon said.

Senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Juan Ponce Enrile, on the other hand, came to the rescue of the embattled government officials.

Both senator-lawyers are of the opinion that no offense was committed by either Santos or the PCGG chair in making that call.

Santiago and Enrile said Santos is not acting as lawyer of Mr. Arroyo or as a member of the board of GSIS.

“That is unrelated to the problem, I think. He’s a member of the board of justices of the GSIS,” said Enrile.

“At the very least it was indiscreet. It might be construed as a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act when one officer tries to influence official transactions that might be to his advantage,” said Santiago in another interview.

“I would suggest, because of this incident, that the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act be amended such that it should be considered a specific crime for any officer to communicate with any other officer of the government respecting an official transaction before the latter’s desk. Any communication, no matter how innocuous should be deemed an offense. That way, no one would be tempted to make just a mere phone call, text or fax message, or any communication of that sort.

“The problem is that although this might be a conclusion that could be drawn from the code of ethics of public officials, it is not specifically outlawed in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. That is why there is a defense that there is no intent to violate criminal law.

“It is a gray area, although he has been candid enough to admit the act he has raised the defense that he has committed no offense. The mere fact that he is in the legal staff of the First Gentleman, if that is true, does not necessarily implicate his boss. He may have acted on his own, or he may have acted for other important people.

“I do not think that this calls for his resignation from the GSIS Board of Trustees, but it is a warning,” she said.

Bookmark to: