Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 00:28:00 09/01/2008
MANILA, Philippines - Even the devil, we know, can quote scripture. It is therefore no surprise that lawyers like Jesus Santos can use noble-sounding purposes to justify patent illegality. Admitting that he had indeed called up Camilo Sabio, the chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government, to intervene on behalf of the Government Service Insurance System, Santos rationalized his transparent attempt to pressure Camilo’s brother, Court of Appeals Justice Jose Sabio, to rule in favor of GSIS as not only legal but public-spirited.
“I thought it was my legal and moral duty to help the GSIS on my own,” Santos, a GSIS trustee, said. “You see, in this case of Meralco against GSIS, we are citizens of the country. We are consumers being victimized by Meralco. I explained to him that in order to serve justice and defend the interest of fellow consumers we must support the campaign of GSIS president Winston Garcia.”
As columnist Amando Doronila has pointed out, this absurd justification “amounted to saying that the end justifies the means.”
Of course, Santos did not call Camilo Sabio because they were famous friends. He called Camilo because Jose Sabio was the CA justice handling the GSIS-Meralco case.
What we have here is a clear case of conspiracy to undermine the rule of law, disguised as a moral duty to help the cause of long-suffering electricity consumers. We say conspiracy, because Camilo said that it was Santos’ call that prompted him to call his brother (not once, but twice) to plead the case for GSIS.
Camilo, himself a lawyer, was self-evidently trying to influence the outcome of the case outside the normal course. But his conscience, apparently, remained clear. “In this unique situation, I believe I was right and I stand by it,” he told the panel of ex-Supreme Court justices investigating the case.
What his answer has in common with the naked rationalizations of Santos is the ugliness of degeneration: Both reflect a debasing, a corruption, of the highest standards of the practice of law. Unfortunately, even Jose Sabio did not meet those same high standards.
While his decision was adverse to GSIS (in other words, while he did not give in to his brother’s illegal lawyering), Jose failed to report his brother’s repeated attempt to influence his decision-making. During the investigation, he told the SC panel he did not find the practice out of the ordinary; at the very least, he owed his older brother a respectful hearing, he said. His reply led to a memorable outburst from ex-SC justice Romeo Callejo: “Why did you not report your brother’s attempt to influence you? That was unethical. You did nothing; you are a professor of ethics. Did you not consider that your brother’s attempt was criminal?”
Sabio’s answer in the negative proved that, as both Santos and his older brother Camilo had done, Jose had redefined what was ethical and what was legal.
But Sabio was not the only CA justice revealed to have acted improperly. Justice Vicente Roxas, for example, said he issued his own decision without waiting for CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez to decide on the simmering dispute between Roxas and Sabio because he had panicked.
But Callejo, a CA member before his appointment to the Supreme Court, would have none of that. “Why did you not wait for the decision of the Presiding Justice? You are not children,” he said.
No, but many of those involved in the CA controversy share something in common with children: size. The investigation showed that many of them were moral pygmies, interpreting clear-cut provisions in the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, the lawyers’ Code of Professional Responsibility and other laws to fit the highly controversial circumstances of the moment. That is why we have Santos blithely explaining away his illegal intervention as public service, Camilo Sabio defending his patently criminal attempt to persuade his brother to vote one way as the moral thing to do, Jose Sabio prioritizing family relations over a judge’s highest responsibilities, Roxas insisting on not including other provisions in his crooked reading of the rules.
The law has been dragged into the mud. No matter. To the morally challenged, dirty is the new clean.
Copyright 2008 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
To
subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines,
call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the
Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk.
Believe this article violates journalistic ethics?
Contact the
Inquirer's Reader's Advocate.
Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Chino RocesAvenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets,
Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94
![Zoom Image](javascript:popwin("http://images.inquirer.net/media/opinion/inquireropinion/editorial/images/pic-09010219220719.jpg", 640, 480))
Zoom
