[G.R. Nos. 159486-88. November 25, 2003.] PRESIDENT !SEP" E ER#IT! ESTR$D$, Petitioner, v. T"E "!N!

R$%&E S$NDIG$N%$'$N [SPE#I$& DI(ISI!N], "!N. )INIT$ #"I#!-N$*$RI!, "!N. EDI&%ERT! S$ND!($&, "!N. TERESIT$ &E!N$RD!-DE #$STR!, +,- T"E PE!P&E !. T"E P"I&IPPINES !. T"E P"I&IPPINES, Respondents. On 23 September 2003, this Court issued its resolution in the above-numbered case; it read:

chanrobles virtuallawlibrary

" he case !or consideration has been brou"ht to this Court via a #etition !or Certiorari under $ule %& o! the $ules o! Court !iled by 'oseph ()ercito (strada, actin" throu"h his counsel *ttorney *lan +, #a"uia, a"ainst the Sandi"anbayan, et at, he #etition prays "., hat Chie! 'ustice /avide and the rest o! the members o! the 0onorable Court dis1uali!y themselves !rom hearin" and decidin" this petition; "2, hat the assailed resolutions o! the Sandi"anbayan be vacated and set aside; and "3, hat Criminal Cases 2o, 2%&&3, 2o, 2%&%& and 2o, 2%40& pendin" be!ore the Sandi"anbayan be dismissed !or lac5 o! )urisdiction, "*ttorney *lan +, #a"uia, spea5in" !or petitioner, asserts that the inhibition o! the members o! the Supreme Court !rom hearin" the petition is called !or under $ule &,.0 o! the Code o! 'udicial Conduct prohibitin" )ustices or )ud"es !rom participatin" in any partisan political activity which proscription, accordin" to him, the )ustices have violated by attendin" the 6(/S* 2 $ally7 and by authori8in" the assumption o! 9ice-#resident :loria ;acapa"al *rroyo to the #residency in violation o! the .43< Constitution, #etitioner contends that the )ustices have thereby pre)ud"ed a case that would assail the le"ality o! the act ta5en by #resident *rroyo, he subse1uent decision o! the Court in (strada v, *rroyo =3&3 SC$* >&2 and 3&% SC$* .03? is, petitioner states, a patent moc5ery o! )ustice and due process, "*ttorney #a"uia !irst made his appearance !or petitioner when he !iled an Omnibus ;otion on .4 ;ay 2003, be!ore the Sandi"anbayan, as5in" that 6the appointment o! counsels de o!!icio =sic? be declared !unctus o!!icio7 and that, bein" the now counsel de parte, he be noti!ied o! all subse1uent proceedin"s in Criminal Cases 2o, 2%&&3, 2o, 2%&%& and 2o, 2%40& pendin" therein, +inally, *ttorney #a"uia as5ed that all the !ore"oin" criminal cases a"ainst his client be dismissed, "/urin" the hearin" o! the Omnibus ;otion on 30 ;ay 2003, petitioner presented to the court several portions o! the boo5, entitled 6$e!ormin" the 'udiciary,7 written by 'ustice *rtemio #an"aniban, to be part o! the evidence !or the de!ense, On 4 'une 2003, petitioner !iled a motion pleadin", amon" other thin"s, that "a? , , , #resident (strada be "ranted the opportunity to prove the 6truth7 o! the statements contained in 'ustice *rtemio #an"aniban7s boo5, 6$(+O$;@2: 0( 'A/@C@*$B,7 in relation to the pre)ud"ment committed by the Supreme Court )ustices a"ainst #resident (strada in the sub)ect caseCs o! (strada v, *rroyo, 3&3 SC$* >&2 and 3&% SC$* .03; and, "b? * subpoena ad testi!icandum and duces tecum be issued to 'ustice *rtemio #an"aniban, 'ustice *ntonio Carpio, 'ustice $enato Corona, Secretary *n"elo $eyes o! the /epartment o! 2ational /e!ense, 9ice #resident :loria ;acapa"al-*rroyo, Senator *1uilino #imentel, 'r,, and Chie! 'ustice 0ilario /avide, 'r, !or them to testi!y and brin" whatever supportin" documents they may have in relation to their direct and indirect participation in the proclamation o! 9ice #resident :loria ;acapa"al-*rroyo on 'anuary 20, 200., as cited in the boo5 o! 'ustice #an"aniban, includin"

the material events that led to that proclamation and the rulin"Cs in the (strada v, *rroyo, supra,7 =$ollo, pp, %D<,? " he 6truth7 re!erred to in para"raph a? o! the relie! sou"ht in the motion o! petitioner pertains to what he claims should have been included in the resolution o! the Sandi"anbayan; vi8:
chanrob.e s virtual .aw library

6 he re1uest o! the movant is simply !or the Court to include in its 'oint $esolution the $A 0 o! the acts o! Chie! 'ustice /avide, (t *l,, last 'anuary 20, 200. in: 6a? "oin" to (/S* 2; 6b? authori8in" the proclamation o! 9ice-#resident *rroyo as #resident on the "round o! 6permanent disability7 even without proo! o! compliance with the correspondin" constitutional conditions, e,",, written declaration by either the #resident or ma)ority o! his cabinet; and 6c? actually proclaimin" 9ice-#resident *rroyo on that same "round o! permanent disability, 6@t is patently unreasonable !or the Court to re!use to include these material !acts which are obviously undeniable, Eesides, it is the only de!ense o! #resident (strada,7 =#etition, $ollo, pp, .3D.>,? "On 2 'uly 2003, the Sandi"anbayan issued an order denyin" the !ore"oin" motion, as well as the motion to dismiss, !iled by petitioner, +orthwith, petitioner !iled a 6;osyon" #an"re5onsiderasyon7 o! the !ore"oin" order, *ccordin" to *ttorney #a"uia, durin" the hearin" o! his 6;osyon" #an"re5onsiderasyon7 on .. 'une 2003, the three )ustices o! the Special /ivision o! the Sandi"anbayan made mani!est their bias and partiality a"ainst his client, hus, he averred, #residin" 'ustice ;inita 9, Chico-2a8ario supposedly employed !oul and disrespect!ul lan"ua"e when she blurted out, 6;a"mumu5ha naman 5amin" "a"o,7 =$ollo, p, .3,? and 'ustice eresita Feonardo-/e Castro characteri8ed the motion as insi"ni!icant even be!ore the prosecution could !ile its comments or opposition thereto, =$ollo, p, .2,? remar5in" in open court that to "rant (strada7s motion would result in chaos and disorder, =@bid,? #rompted by the alle"ed 6bias and partial attitude7 o! the Sandi"anbayan )ustices, *ttorney #a"uia !iled, on .> 'uly 2003, a motion !or their dis1uali!ication, On 3. 'uly 2003, petitioner received the two assailed resolutions, i,e,, the resolution =#romul"ated on 30 'uly 2003,? o! 23 'uly 2003, denyin" petitioner7s motion !or reconsideration o! % 'uly 2003; vi8:
chanrob.es virtua. .aw .ibrary chanrob.es virtual .aw library

6G0($(+O$(, premises considered, Accused-movant 'oseph ()ercito (strada7s 6;osyon" #an"re5onsiderasyon7 =2a tumutu5oy sa 'oint $esolution n" 0ulyo 2, 2003? dated 'uly %, 2003 is /(2@(/ !or lac5 o! merit,7 =$ollo, p, 3<,? "and the resolution =#romul"ated on 30 'uly 2003,? o! 2& 'uly 2003, denyin" petitioner7s motion !or dis1uali!ication o! .> 'uly 2003; vi8:
chanrob.e s virtual .aw library

6G0($(+O$(, prescindin" !rom all the !ore"oin", the Court, !or want o! merit, hereby /(2@(S the ;otion !or /is1uali!ication,7 =$ollo, p, >3,? " he instant petition assailin" the !ore"oin" orders must be /@S;@SS(/ !or "ross insu!!iciency in substance and !or utter lac5 o! merit, he Sandi"anbayan committed no "rave abuse o! discretion, an indispensable re1uirement to warrant a recourse to the eHtraordinary relie! o! petition !or certiorari under $ule %& o! the $evised $ules o! Civil #rocedure, On the one hand, petitioner would disclaim the authority and )urisdiction o! the members o! this tribunal and, on the other hand, he would elevate the petition now be!ore it to challen"e the two resolutions o! the Sandi"anbayan, 0e denounces the decision as bein" a patent moc5ery o! )ustice and due process, *ttorney #a"uia went on to state that -

6 he act o! the public o!!icer, i! F*G+AF, is the act o! the public o!!ice, Eut the act o! the public o!!icer, i! A2F*G+AF, is not the act o! the public o!!ice, Conse1uently, the act o! the )ustices, i! F*G+AF, is the act o! the Supreme Court, Eut the act o! the )ustices, i! A2F*G+AF, is not the act o! the Supreme Court, @t is submitted that the /ecision in (S $*/* v, *$$OBO bein" patently unlaw!ul in view o! $ule &,.0 o! the CO/( O+ 'A/@C@*F CO2/AC , is not the act o! the Supreme Court but is merely the wron" or trespass o! those individual 'ustices who !alsely spo5e and acted in the name o! the Supreme Court, =Arbano v, Chave8, .33 SC$* I3><J?, +urthermore, it would seem absurd to allow the 'ustices to use the name o! the Supreme Court as a shield !or their A2F*G+AF act,7 =#etition, $ollo, p, ..,? "Criticism or comment made in "ood !aith on the correctness or wron"ness, soundness or unsoundness, o! a decision o! the Court would be welcome !or, i! well-!ounded, such reaction can enli"hten the court and contribute to the correction o! an error i! committed, =@n $e Sotto, 32 #hil, &4&,? " he rulin" in (strada v, *rroyo, bein" a !inal )ud"ment, has lon" put to end any 1uestion pertainin" to the le"ality o! the ascension o! *rroyo into the presidency, Ey revivin" the issue on the validity o! the assumption o! ;me, :loria ;acapa"al-*rroyo to the presidency, *ttorney #a"uia is vainly see5in" to breathe li!e into the carcass o! a lon" dead issue, "*ttorney #a"uia has not limited his discussions to the merits o! his client7s case within the )udicial !orum; indeed, he has repeated his assault on the Court in both broast and print media, $ule .3,02 o! the Code o! #ro!essional $esponsibility prohibits a member o! the bar !rom ma5in" such public statements on any pendin" case tendin" to arouse public opinion !or or a"ainst a party, Ey his acts, *ttorney #a"uia may have sto5ed the !ires o! public dissension and posed a potentially dan"erous threat to the administration o! )ustice, "@t is not the !irst time that *ttorney #a"uia has eHhibited similar conduct towards the Supreme Court, @n a letter, dated 30 'une 2003, addressed to Chie! 'ustice 0ilario :, /avide, 'r,, and *ssociate 'ustice *rtemio 9, #an"aniban, he has demanded, in a clearly dis"uised !orm o! !orum shoppin", !or several advisory opinions on matters pendin" be!ore the Sandi"anbayan, @n a resolution, dated 03 'uly 2003, this Court has stron"ly warned *ttorney *lan #a"uia, on pain o! disciplinary sanction, to desist !rom !urther ma5in", directly or indirectly, similar submissions to this Court or to its ;embers, Eut, unmind!ul o! the well-meant admonition to him by the Court, *ttorney #a"uia appears to persist on end, "G0($(+O$(, the instant petition !or certiorari is /@S;@SS(/, and the Court hereby orders *ttorney *lan #a"uia, counsel !or petitioner 'oseph ()ercito (strada, to S0OG C*AS(, within ten days !rom notice hereo!, why he should not be sanctioned !or conduct unbecomin" a lawyer and an o!!icer o! the Court,"
cralaw virtua.aw library

On .0 October 2003, *tty, #a"uia submitted his compliance with the show-cause order, @n a three-pa"e pleadin", *tty, #a"uia, in an obstinate display o! de!iance, repeated his earlier claim o! political partisanship a"ainst the members o! the Court, Canon &,.0 o! the Code o! 'udicial Conduct, which *tty, #a"uia has tirelessly 1uoted to "ive some semblance o! validity !or his "roundless attac5 on the Court and its members, provides "$ule &,.0, * )ud"e is entitled to entertain personal views on political 1uestions, Eut to avoid suspicion o! political partisanship, a )ud"e shall not ma5e political speeches, contribute to party !unds, publicly endorse candidates !or political o!!ice or participate in other partisan political activities,"
cralaw virtua.aw library

Section <4=b? o! the Omnibus (lection Code de!ines the term "partisan political activities;" the law states:

)"c:chanroble s,com,ph

" he term 6election campai"n7 or 6partisan political activity7 re!ers to an act desi"ned to promote the election or de!eat o! a particular candidate or candidates to a public o!!ice which shall include:
)"c:chanroble s,com,ph

"=.? +ormin" or"ani8ations, associations, clubs, committees or other "roups o! persons !or the purpose o! solicitin" votes andCor underta5in" any campai"n !or or a"ainst a candidate; "=2? 0oldin" political caucuses, con!erences, meetin"s, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies, !or the purpose o! solicitin" votes andCor underta5in" any campai"n or propa"anda !or or a"ainst a candidate, "=3? ;a5in" speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holdin" interviews !or or a"ainst the election o! any candidate !or public o!!ice; "=>? #ublishin" or distributin" campai"n literature or materials desi"ned to support or oppose the election o! any candidate; or "=&? /irectly or indirectly solicitin" votes, pled"es or support !or or a"ainst a candidate,"

cralaw virtua.aw library

@t should be clear that the phrase "partisan political activities," in its statutory conteHt, relates to acts desi"ned to cause the success or the de!eat o! a particular candidate or candidates who have !iled certi!icates o! candidacy to a public o!!ice in an election, he ta5in" o! an oath o! o!!ice by any incomin" #resident o! the $epublic be!ore the Chie! 'ustice o! the #hilippines is a traditional o!!icial !unction o! the 0i"hest ;a"istrate, he assailed presence o! other )ustices o! the Court at such an event could be no di!!erent !rom their appearance in such other o!!icial !unctions as attendin" the *nnual State o! the 2ation *ddress by the #resident o! the #hilippines be!ore the Fe"islative /epartment,
chanrob.es virtua. .aw .ibrary

he Supreme Court does not claim in!allibility; it will not denounce criticism made by anyone a"ainst the Court !or, i! well-!ounded, can truly have constructive e!!ects in the tas5 o! the Court, but it will not countenance any wron"doin" nor allow the erosion o! our people7s !aith in the )udicial system, let alone, by those who have been privile"ed by it to practice law in the #hilippines, Canon .. o! the Code o! #ro!essional $esponsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and )udicial o!!icers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others, @n liberally imputin" sinister and devious motives and 1uestionin" the impartiality, inte"rity, and authority o! the members o! the Court, *tty, #a"uia has only succeeded in see5in" to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation o! )ustice, he attention o! *tty, #a"uia has also been called to the mandate o! $ule .3,02 o! the Code o! #ro!essional $esponsibility prohibitin" a member o! the bar !rom ma5in" such public statements on a case that may tend to arouse public opinion !or or a"ainst a party, $e"rettably, *tty, #a"uia has persisted in i"norin" the Court7s well-meant admonition, On the <th September 2003 issue o! the /aily ribune, *tty, #a"uia wrote to say "Ghat is the le"al e!!ect o! that violation o! #resident (strada7s ri"ht to due process o! lawK @t renders the decision in (strada v, *rroyo unconstitutional and void, he rudiments o! !air play were not observed, here was no !air play since it appears that when #resident (strada !iled his petition, Chie! 'ustice /avide and his !ellow )ustices had already committed to the other party - :;* - with a )ud"ment already made and waitin" to be !ormali8ed a!ter the liti"ants

shall have under"one the charade o! a !ormal hearin", *!ter the )ustices had authori8ed the proclamation o! :;* as president, can they be eHpected to voluntarily admit the unconstitutionality o! their own actK" Anrelentin"ly, *tty, #a"uia has continued to ma5e public statements o! li5e nature, he Court has already warned *tty, #a"uia, on pain o! disciplinary sanction, to become mind!ul o! his "rave responsibilities as a lawyer and as an o!!icer o! the Court, *pparently, he has chosen not to at all ta5e heed, G0($(+O$(, *ttorney *lan #a"uia is hereby inde!initely suspended !rom the practice o! law, e!!ective upon his receipt hereo!, !or conduct unbecomin" a lawyer and an o!!icer o! the Court, Fet copies o! this resolution be !urnished the O!!ice o! the Ear Con!idant, the @nte"rated Ear o! the #hilippines and all courts o! the land throu"h the O!!ice o! the Court *dministrator, SO O$/($(/,

chanrob.es virt

As early as January, 2008, Paguia himself had requested the SC to lift the suspension, by telling the court that the purpose of the suspension had been achieved and there !as no more useful purpose to continue it" Subsequently, the SC on #arch $0, 2008 approved a resolution holding in abeyance the resolution of the petition to lift Paguia%s suspension pending the submission of proof that the &'P and the civic and religious sectors !ere favorably endorsing his reinstatement to the practice of la! and certification from competent courts that he has not appeared in court as counsel during his suspension"