Re: Allegations Made Under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon

Committee Hearing Held Against Associate Justice Gregory Ong

[Case Digest]
AM NO SB-14-21-J
Sept 23, 2014

Facts:
 In 2013, news broke about the “pork barrel scam” wherein the PDAF allotted to the
members of HOR and Senate was channeled through bogus foundations.
 In the investigation conducted by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, the names of
Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory Ong was mentioned by the whistle-blowers
who are former employees of the alleged mastermind, Janet Lim Napoles.
 The following day, Rappler published an article showing a photograph of Sen. Jinggoy
Estrada, together with Napoles and Justice Ong.
o When interviewed, Justice Ong denied knowing Napoles and recalled that the
photograph was from one of the parties of Sen. Estrada
o He admitted that given the ongoing controversy, the picture gains a different
context
o Nevertheless, he exclaims that his service to the judiciary remains untainted and
denied that he was the one advising Napoles on legal strategies in connection
with the Kevlar cases where she was acquitted.
 One of the witnesses said that she saw Justice Ong visiting the office of Napoles and
having a meeting with her in the conference room
o Justice Ong merely said that during the birthday party of Sen. Estrada, Napoles
talked to him during which the miraculous healing power of the Black Nazarene
was mentioned
 Napoles mentioned that she has connections to get him to touch the
Black Nazarene
 Justice Ong agreed and because of such favor, he went into her office to
personally thank her
o Justice Ong maintains that there is nothing wrong with that considering that she
has no pending case with his Court at the moment

Issue:
(1) WON Justice Ong’s visit to Napoles constituted impropriety in violation of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct

Held:
(1) YES. Justice Ong’s act of visiting Napoles was grossly improper and violated Section 1,
Canon 4 (Propriety) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which says “Judges shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.”
 A judge must not only be impartial but he must also appear to be impartial and that
fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this appearance. A judge must freely accept restriction
on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen
 Napoles was not a colleague or a lawyer-friend but an accused in a former case before
the Sandiganbayan chaired by Justice Ong himself and which acquitted her from
malversation charge
o It does not matter that the case is no longer pending when improper acts were
committed by the judge because the termination of the case will not deter public
criticisms for acts which may cast suspicion on its disposition or resolution.
o Justice Ong’s association with Napoles has unfortunately dragged the Judiciary
into the pork barrel controversy, which initially involved only legislative and
executive officials.
 Worse, Napoles’ much flaunted contact in the judiciary was a Justice of Sandiganbayan,
a special court tasked to hear graft and corruption cases. The Court cannot, therefore
consider Justice Ong’s transgression as a simple misconduct.