The July 9 Inquirer headline said it all: “Pro-Napoles justice guilty—SC unanimous, split on penalty for case-fixing.”
That was how the Supreme Court acted on the recommendation of its appointed investigator, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, to dismiss Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory Ong for having committed graft and corruption.
The Sandiganbayan is the very court created by the Constitution to deal with and punish graft and corruption! That the Supreme Court could not decide whether to dismiss or just suspend him is downright depressing. If anything, Ong’s being a justice in that court should have been an aggravating circumstance!
Is the Court really considering “suspension” only? What kind of message would it send to the public? So, after “suspension,” he would be back ensconced in his high and mighty chair? What moral ascendancy would he still have over those standing accused before him of graft and corruption amid lingering suspicions that he could be bought? Not just suspicions—the Supreme Court itself found him “guilty” of having received money in consideration of acquitting Janet Lim-Napoles in a case before him. Is the Supreme Court really serious about ridding the judiciary of scalawags?
—GEORGE DEL MAR, gdmlaw111@gmail.com