18 June 2018

HON. ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Acting Chief Justice
Acting Ex-Officio Chairman
Judicial and Bar Council
2nd Floor Centennial Bldg.
Supreme Court, Padre Faura
Manila

Opposition to the Candidacy of

Hon. Samuel R. Martires for Ombudsman

We, concerned Catholic priests, Evangelical pastors, and theological teachers write to the Honorable
Judicial and Bar Council through its Acting ​Ex-Officio Chairman to convey our opposition to the
candidacy of Hon. Samuel R. Martires for the position of Ombudsman. The Constitution provides
that the Ombudsman should have recognized probity.1 We respectfully submit that the Hon. Samuel
R. Martires has failed to meet this standard.

Probity is a high standard; in fact, it is adherence to the highest principles and ideals.2 Probity is
having strong moral principles, honesty, and decency.3

Justice Martires’ refusal to inhibit himself from the ​Quo Warranto case despite the clear directive in
the New Code of Judicial Conduct that requires a judge to disqualify himself mandatorily when
there is bias and partiality as shown by having personal knowledge on facts being disputed during a
trial shows his lack of probity.4 His bias and partiality is also shown by the fact that he raised as
issues those which are not covered by the case against Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes A. Sereno. His
patently biased line of questioning during the oral arguments on the connection between “mental
illness” and ‘invoking God as the source of personal strength’, ‘God as the source of inspiration’,
‘God as the source of happiness’, and ‘God as the source of everything in life’ also betrays a blatant

1
§8, Art. XI of the Constitution.
2
Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
3
​Oxford Living Dictionary.
4
§5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or
in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter impartially. Such proceedings include, but are
not limited to, instances where
(a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;

1
lack of respect for faith-based communities despite the clear Constitutional guarantee mandating
respect for religious freedom which as a Justice of the Supreme Court he is bound to observe.

The interrogatories raised by the Hon. Justice Martires cause offense because one cannot make
generalizations of the overall mental health of a person based on one's religious belief and practice.
To imply that Chief Justice Sereno's religiosity is an indication of mental illness is not based on
reasoned rhetoric nor judicial examination because an expert on the matter has to look at other
indicators such as how the subject person carries herself and how she behaves under stress — facts
which are not at issue in the ​quo warranto ​proceeding. It must also be noted at this juncture that
recent research indicates that higher levels of spirituality are associated with better mental health.5

Similarly, the interrogatories raised by the Hon. Justice Martires during the ​quo warranto petition
oral arguments should not be interpreted as isolated incidents. These questions are seen in the
context of Justice Martires’ testimony against the Chief Justice before the House of Representatives6
and also in Justice Martires’ subsequent statements as contained in his separate opinion where he
denies “faith-shaming”’.7 However, we view Justice Martires’ denials as self-serving, especially in a
context where mandatory recusal is demanded by law.

We expect cold neutrality and impartiality from judges because these are the standards imposed
upon them by the rules they should comply with.8 In fact, judges must not only be impartial, they
must also ​appear ​to be impartial.9 This rule is not only enshrined in the New Code of Judicial
Conduct but was enunciated by the Supreme Court no less than a mere 66 days before removing the
Chief Justice -- with all Justices who appeared before the House of Representatives to testify against
her not recusing themselves, including the Hon. Justice Martires, who is at present a candidate for
the Office of the Ombudsman.

As leaders of the faith community, we try to be reasonable observers of the ​quo warranto ​trial
against the Hon. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno. We see the duty of being cautious and
diligent observers of the trial as a moral and ethical obligation on our part as leaders of the
community of faith. We view with dismay the fact that during the ​quo warranto petition oral
arguments against the Chief Justice, candidate Hon. Justice Martires through his interrogatories
made the unwarranted juxtaposition of the Christian faith of the Chief Justice against symptoms of
mental or psychological illness — this, despite the ​quo warranto petition being concerned solely

5
Koenig, H.G. “​Research on Religion, Spirituality, and Mental Health: A Review​”. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Volume: 54 issue: 5,
page(s): 283-291. (01 May 2009)
6
De Jesus, J.L. “Blowout’ joke among SC Associate Justices a breather in House impeach hearing” Philippine Daily Inquirer. (15 January
2018) Available from:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/960371/blowout-joke-among-sc-associate-justices-a-breather-in-house-impeach-hearing#ixzz5Gmi9Rz58
(Accessed 25 May 2018)
7
​Republic v. Sereno​, G.R. No. 237428. (11 May 2018), Separate Opinion by Justice Martires.
8
​Dacera v. Judge Dizon,​ A.M. No. RTJ-00-1573. (02 August 2000)
9
​OCA v. Judge Dumayas​. A.M. No. RTJ-15-2435. (06 March 2018)

2
with the issue of the alleged non-submission of Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth
(SALN) by the Chief Justice.10

We live in a world of contexts. Words, events, and actions should not be seen independently from
each other but rather should be synthesized so as to distill the meanings of statements and
motivations of individuals. Rhetoric used by people arise from deep seated convictions and do not
merely appear through chance. The pattern of interrogatories reveals bias on the part of Hon.
Justice Martires, especially since these should be prohibited and prevented from influencing the
decision-making process during the ​quo warranto​ proceedings.

All of these unacceptable acts appear even more outrageous, in our perspective, since it is
respectfully submitted that the Hon. Justice Martires may have only eluded administrative liability
for non-recusal merely because he is a sitting member of the Supreme Court, the very same
institution which has the power to reprimand and discipline such behavior. This is patent abuse of
power and authority, which this Honorable Judicial and Bar Council can address and rectify as an
independent Constitutional body.

Similarly, we express our deep consternation that a judge who was the subject of at least three
administrative cases — one of which resulted in Hon. Justice Martires being admonished by the
Supreme Court — is now being considered for the Office of the Ombudsman.11 In January 2013, the
SC admonished and sternly warned Martires and two other Sandiganbayan justices for failing to
immediately implement the arrest of the former mayor of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, Pacifico Velasco. In
its decision, the SC admonished the 3 justices to be "more circumspect and prudent in observing the
proper rules and procedures for the execution of judgments of conviction in the absence of
restraining orders or injunctive writs from the Court." Justice Martires was also “sternly warned
that repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.” The high standard of
probity is certainly not met when the candidate for Ombudsman is someone who has been
admonished for misconduct and found administratively liable by the Supreme Court.

Justice Martires’ lack of probity is also shown by his April 2013 Sandiganbayan resolution that
upheld the plea bargain agreement entered into by former military comptroller Major General
Carlos Garcia and the former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.12 He allowed Garcia to plead guilty
to lesser bailable offenses of indirect bribery and facilitating money laundering, instead of plunder.
Under the deal, Garcia was to return P135 million worth of properties, stocks and bank deposits –
less than half of the P303 million that he allegedly acquired illegally. While the Supreme Court
eventually stopped the plea bargain deal and bail that Garcia was allowed to post13, and the
Sandiganbayan also recalled its 2010 resolution that allowed the former comptroller to post bail14,

10
Petition of the Solicitor General in ​Republic v. Sereno​. Available from:
https://sa.kapamilya.com/absnews/abscbnnews/media/2018/news/03/06/osg-petition-for-quo-warranto-republic-v-sereno.pdf
(Accessed 25 May 2018)
11
Judge Pangan v. Judge Ganay and Judge Martires​. A.M. No. RTJ-04-1887. (09 December 2004); ​Re: Complaint of Mr. Antonio Baltazar.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-27-SB-J (2011);​ R ​ e: Complaint of Leonardo Velasco​. A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-25-SB-J. (15 January 2013)
12
Sandiganbayan Second Division. Resolution. ​People v. Garcia, et.al. ​Criminal Case Nos. 28107 & SB-09-CRM-0194 (10 April 2013)
13
Supreme Court Spokesperson Atty. Theodore O. Te. ​Statement on the Issuance of TRO by SC Third Division.​ (03 July 2013)
14
Sandiganbayan Second Division. ​Order​. ​People v. Garcia, et.al.​ Criminal Case Nos. 28107 & SB-09-CRM-0194 (09 July 2013)

3
Justice Martires remained unrepentant. He insisted in his JBC interview for the SC that his
Resolution was proper.15

Another Martires Resolution that shows his lack of probity is his 2012 verdict clearing the late
dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the late Armed Forces Chief Fabian Ver, and businessman Roberto
Ongpin, over the alleged Binondo Central Bank scam.16 The PCGG filed a P50-billion damage suit
claiming that with the protection of the Marcos government, the Binondo Central Bank – composed
of black market dollar traders rounded up by Ongpin and Ver – engaged in buying US dollars and
stashing them abroad. But Martires’ Sandiganbayan verdict said that there was "no evidence to
prove that these defendants received money by way of kickbacks, commission, gifts, or percentages
from capitalists of the Binondo Central Bank." Both the PCGG and the OSG questioned Martires'
ruling, saying his decision was "not an honest and good faith attempt to resolve the instant case in a
principled way."17 The fact that 2 agencies of government questioned his Resolution highlights his
lack of probity.

Further, Justice Martires’ view that that the late dictator was not dishonorably discharged by the
Filipino people by force of the People Power Revolution is disconcerting. When he was asked about
his views on the Marcos burial issue, he stated that it was his belief that Marcos was "not actually
ousted by the Filipino people but [he] opted to leave Malacañang and go to Hawaii just to… prevent
any untoward incident that may happen in EDSA."18 His view is not supported by historical facts.19
That a Justice of the SC would insist on this revisionist interpretation of a major historical event
shows a failure to meet the standard of probity.

As leaders of the faith community, we educate the faithful on how to behave in civilized society,
how to act properly, how to be governed by strictures and rules which provide the least harm for
every person. We see the Supreme Court serving a similar function as it educates not only the Bench
and the Bar but also every citizen and person on how to understand and meaningfully read the law
and observe its proper compliance. Therefore we denounce how the Hon. Justice Martires has
brazenly disregarded the mandatory inhibition expected of him as a Justice of the Highest Court as
well as his decisions that reflect a lack of moral principles and honesty.

The Ombudsman performs an important duty in our Republic. The Ombudsman can shape the
landscape of the civil service. For the Ombudsman to have been administratively admonished in the
past, for the Ombudsman to have failed to follow mandatory rules such as recusal as a judge, for
15
Judicial and Bar Council Interview of Hon. Samuel R. Martires. (16 November 2016) a video of the interview is accessible at url:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5gneM_1d2Q​ (Accessed: 25 May 2018) Discussions on ​People v. Garcia et.al. ​around 9 mins. 20
secs.
16
Sandiganbayan Second Division. ​Decision​. ​Republic v. Ver, etl.al.​ SB Civil Case No. 0017 (19 January 2012)
17
Presidential Commission on Good Government and Office of the Solicitor General. Motion for Reconsideration. ​Republic v. Ver, etl.al. ​SB
Civil Case No. 0017 (17 February 2012)
18
Judicial and Bar Council Interview of Hon. Samuel R. Martires. (16 November 2016) a video of the interview is accessible at url:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5gneM_1d2Q​ (Accessed: 25 May 2018) Discussions on the People Power Revolution around 54
mins.
19
Steinberg, DJ. “The Philippines: A Singular Place” Nations of the Modern World: Asia. 4th ed. Westview Press. p.151 (2000); See also
“The Philippines Reader: A History of Colonialism, Neocolonialism, Dictatorship, and Resistance” edited by Schirmer, D.B. and Shalom,
S.R. 1st ed. South End Press. Ch.10 “Marcos’s Final Crisis” p.333-358 (1987); See also a long line of Supreme Court cases such as ​Marcos v.
Manglapus, ​G.R. No. 88211 (15 September 1989), etc.

4
issuing questionable resolutions, for asserting untruthful historical facts, and for the Ombudsman to
have prejudgment against faithful people; all these would besmirch our institutions and would
invite discrimination in the highest echelons of our Constitutional government. We therefore
respectfully submit that the Honorable Judicial and Bar Council remain committed to maintaining
the very high standard of probity that the Constitution imposes on those desiring to hold the
position of Ombudsman.

Respectfully,

Dario D. Pacheco, C.M.

Marlon A. de Luna
St. Vincent School of Theology
St. Vincent School of Theology

Peter Solis, C.M.

Daniel Franklin Pilario, C.M.
St. Vincent School of Theology
St. Vincent School of Theology

Jimmy Belita, C.M. Carol Daria

St. Vincent School of Theology St. Vincent School of Theology

Eugene Canete, M.J. Ada Javellana Loredo

St. Vincent School of Theology St. Vincent School of Theology

Noena Surmieda
St. Vincent School of Theology Mirasol Navidad, R.S.C.J.
St. Vincent School of Theology

5
Delfin P. Chiniona Cynthia Cruz Datu
St. Vincent School of Theology Faith Bible College, Inc.

Amanda Shao-Tan, Ph.D.

Asian Theological Seminary
Annelle G. Sabanal, Ph.D.
Asian Theological Seminary

Fermin P. Manalo, Jr. Christopher D. Sabanal, Ph.D.

Asian Theological Seminary Asian Theological Seminary

Annabel M. Manalo, Ph.D. Athena Evelyn Gorospe, Ph.D.

Asian Theological Seminary Asian Theological Seminary