Did Associate Justice Marvic Leonen commit an act of intellectual dishonesty when he wrote his dissent in the recently promulgated decision in Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan? Did Justice Bersamin have a point with his accusation?
Justice Leonen
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan is the title of the decision wherein the Supreme Court ordered the Sandiganbayan to release Juan Ponce Enrile, a detainee over a plunder charge, on bail. In that decision the Supreme Court, through the Ponente, Justice Bersamin argued that Enrile is entitled to bail because: (1) Enrile is not a flight risk and; (2) Humanitarian considerations.
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile out on bail
As a personal opinion, I find Leonen’s dissent superior to the majority decision when it discussed the procedural grounds that would in effect cause the remand to the Sandiganbayan of Enrile’s motion for further findings of fact (read more about that here). But the dissent is, at the same time, very troubling. Justice Leonen described the deliberations behind that decision:
When this case was called again for deliberation during the En Banc session on August 11, 2015, the member in charge (now the ponente) proposed the idea of dropping all discussion on the legal points pertaining to whether bail was a matter of right and focusing the grant of bail on “humanitarian” grounds. The member in charge committed to circulate a draft for the consideration of all justices. This member expressed that he was open to listen to all arguments.
The revised draft that centered on granting bail on the basis of the medical condition of petitioner was circulated on August 14, 2015. After considered reflection, this member responded with a letter …
x x x
The points in my letter were raised during the deliberation of August 18, 2015. The member in charge, however, did not agree to wait for a more extensive written reflection on the points raised. Insisting on a vote, he thus declared that he was abandoning the August 14, 2015 circulated draft centering on release on bail on humanitarian ground for his earlier version premised on the idea that bail was a matter of right based on judicial notice and the judicial declaration of the existence of two mitigating circumstances.
This was the version voted upon at about 11:00 a.m. of AUgust 18, 2015. …
x x x
[Later that day] or at about 3:00 p.m., the ponente passed around a final copy of the majority opinion which was not the version voted upon during the morning’s deliberation. Rather, the copy offered for signature was substantially the August 14, 2015 circulated version granting bail on humanitarian grounds.
x x x
Ordinarily, the drafts of the dissents would have been available to all members of the court at the time that the case was voted upon. But because the final version for signing was not the version voted upon, … (underscoring supplied)
According to the Ponente Justice Bersamin, this is a “Gross Distortion” and an “unprecedented invasion of the autonomy” of the majority. I agree with Bersamin.
Justice Lucas Bersamin
In an interview, Bersamin said:
Leonen, ..., violated the confidentiality rule on court sessions, as stated in Section 2, Rule 10, of the Supreme Court’s internal rules, when he disclosed in his dissent how the decision was reached.
Leonen, ..., violated the confidentiality rule on court sessions, as stated in Section 2, Rule 10, of the Supreme Court’s internal rules, when he disclosed in his dissent how the decision was reached.
Section 2 states: “Court sessions are executive in character, with only the members of the court present. Court deliberations are confidential and shall not be disclosed to outside parties, except as may be provided herein or as authorized by the court.”
Bersamin said he felt compelled to issue his rejoinder, in self-defense, “because the comments of Justice Leonen, if left without rectification, might be held to be the truth.”
“Obviously, such comments were not the truth, but were the result of a self-righteous mindset,” he added.
“I could have tolerated the unfairness, except that the comments were published and soon unavoidably became fodder for people of closed minds and clear biases to criticize my intelligence, regionalism, loyalty and what else. In this age of the Internet, I simply cannot be tolerant but must respond,” Bersamin said. (Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer)
Even more damning, as this Philippine Star article seems to indicate is that it was Leonen who actually suggested humanitarian considerations as a basis.
He also recalled Leonen even approached him during the Baguio summer session “to suggest to limit the justification for granting bail to humanitarian grounds.”
“He should have a clear recollection of this. Hoping that the Court could be unanimous, I said then that I would give his suggestion a serious consideration,” Bersamin said.
The takeaway is that Leonen, far from the paragon of justice and being CJ Claudio Teehankee “Reborn” acted on his political bias, politicized the deliberations on this case. We know that Leonen has always been a diehard yellow, and like other diehard yellows, they seem to suffer some sort of “topak” that makes them think that they are are in the right no matter what they do. To repeat Justice Bersamin: “Obviously, such comments were not the truth, but were the result of a self-righteous mindset.”
What is more troubling is the allegation that Leonen committed “Gross Distortions” in his dissent. The layman’s term for “Gross Distortion” is lying. Nagsisinungaling siya. All this in order to have his way.
What is Leonen’s motive? Was he acting on instructions from his Yellow boss? Was it intellectual pride? We may never know.
No Stranger to butting heads with the SC
Justice Leonen is no stranger to butting heads with the high court. In 2010 when he was still Dean of the University of the Philippines - College of Law, he led the faculty in a statement calling for the resignation of Justice Mariano del Castillo for [alleged] plagiarism in the comfort women case Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary. In an administrative matter, Leonen was directed to show cause why he should not be disciplined for violation of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility to wit:
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
So my dear Justice Leonen, you may have been quite the “hipster prof” back in your teaching days, but those days are over - this isn’t UP. You are a Justice of the Supreme Court now! - It is in our country’s interest that you maintain integrity in it as an institution! - So start acting like you’re part of the team.
No comments:
Post a Comment