Louis C. Biraogo, the man who accused Chief Justice Reynato Puno of sitting on a Supreme Court en banc decision — affirming a decision of the Commission on Elections that Rep. Jocelyn Sy Limkaichong is a Chinese citizen and cannot sit as a member of the House of Representatives — told a strange story at the Kapihan sa Manila media forum last Monday.

In early October last year, he said, somebody left a brown envelope at his home in Biñan City in Laguna province. It contained a letter and some documents, allegedly from a concerned Supreme Court employee.

The letter said that there already was a decision on the Limkaichong case penned by Justice Ruben Reyes and signed by 14 associate justices, but Chief Justice Puno had not signed and promulgated it. The documents are copies of the Court’s decision; one of them amounts to a dissenting opinion from Justice Antonio Carpio but is titled “Reflections.”

Biraogo did not verify the authenticity of the documents despite the strange circumstances surrounding his receipt of them. They could have been fakes, but Biraogo seemed confident that they were genuine and immediately called a press conference and accused the Chief Justice of sitting on the case. (The Court told Biraogo to explain why he should not be cited for contempt.) A cautious person would first determine the genuineness of papers sent to him by an anonymous person, but Biraogo did no such thing and went full steam ahead with his accusations.

As immediately, there spread a lot of talk that Chief Justice Puno would be impeached.

Incidentally, one of the complainants in the disqualification case against Limkaichong is Olivia Paras, wife of former congressman Jacinto Paras. Olivia lost to Limkaichong by more than 7,000 votes in the elections for the first district of Negros Oriental province, hence the disqualification case. If you can’t win an election fair and square, win some other way, such as by having your rival disqualified.

Biraogo and Jacinto Paras have admitted that they are friends, but they deny that Jacinto has anything to do with Biraogo’s accusations against Puno.

Among the accusations is that Puno and Dean Pacifico Agabin, counsel for Limkaichong, are fraternity brothers, along with Assistant Solicitor General Renan E. Ramos who, Biraogo said, sided with Limkaichong instead of with his client, the Commission on Elections, during the oral arguments on the case.

At the Kapihan, Agabin denied that Puno gave him and his client favorable treatment because they were fraternity brothers. “I’ve lost all my cases in the Puno Supreme Court,” he chuckled. “In the only big case I won,” he added, “Puno even wrote a dissenting opinion.”

Biraogo insists that the non-promulgation of the decision, despite the fact that all the justices (except Puno) signed the decision, is depriving the rightful representative of Negros Oriental of his/her seat in the House. The term ends in June 2010 and further delay, he said, may render the decision moot and academic.

However, Midas Marquez, spokesman of the high court, told the Kapihan that a decision, unless promulgated, is not final even when signed by all the justices. It remains only a draft unless promulgated, he said.

Justices change their minds as more facts are brought to light in further meetings of the justices, Marquez said, hence the lack of finality of even signed decisions. Besides, in the Limkaichong case, he added, while 14 justices concurred “in the result,” only seven of them agreed with the reasoning behind it. Nine justices did not agree.

The law mandates that in all decisions, the laws and reasoning justifying them be clearly explained, Marquez said. Without such explanation, termed as a “doctrinal ruling,” the decision is null and void. Hence, the Chief Justice wanted a delay in the promulgation of the decision until the Court comes up with a “doctrinal ruling” because it would be unseating an incumbent member of the House.

Critics immediately saw the hand of Malacañang in the threatened impeachment of Puno. The Palace wants Puno out, these critics said, so that all the Supreme Court justices would be appointees of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and therefore would be sympathetic to the President when cases involving her reach the high court — such as whether the Senate and the House should vote separately or as one body during a Constitutional Assembly. If they have to vote as one body, the senators would be overwhelmed by the more numerous congressmen; if separately, Charter change has no chance as all the senators are against it. Naturally, Malacañang’s mouthpieces denied any involvement.

So what now? 1. Will Puno be impeached? 2. Will Limkaichong be thrown out of the House? 3. Will Olivia Paras be allowed to replace Limkaichong as representative of the first district of Negros Oriental? 4. Will Biraogo be cited for contempt?

On number 1, judging from the statements of its leaders, I don’t think the House will impeach Puno. That is, if Malacañang is not involved in the “plan.” If it is, then you can be sure that the congressmen will do the Palace’s bidding. But even if he is impeached, I don’t think the Senate will decide against him after trial.

On number 2, I think Limkaichong will be ousted, considering that 14 justices concurred “in the result” of the decision Reyes authored.

On number 3, I don’t think Olivia Paras will be joining the House soon. In a number of precedents, the Court ruled that when the “winner” in an election case is ousted, the candidate with the second highest number of votes does not necessarily replace the ousted candidate. A special election for the vacant position is usually held.

On number 4, I think Biraogo will be cited for contempt, considering the grave repercussions of what he had done to Chief Justice Puno and the Supreme Court.