Gregory Ong Ong’s Defense

RE: Allegations made under oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing held
on September 26, 2013 against Associate Justice Gregory Ong of the Sandiganbayan
Per Curiam | September 23, 2014
FACTS
 He never met Napoles prior or during the pendency of the Kevlar Cases.
 He never received any money from Napoles.
 The Kevlar Cases were decided based on merits.
 He never had any transactions with Napoles.
 He visisted Napoles’ office to thank her regarding the Black Nazarene.
 The whistle blowers’ testimonies were conflicting and incredible.

 When the Pork Barrel Scam broke news in 2013, incriminating evidence surfaced ISSUE: WON Ong should be dismissed from service in the judiciary – YES
implicating Sandiganbayan AJ Gregory Ong.

o Marina Sula pointed him to have visited the office of Napoles frequently.
RATIO
o A photo published by Rappler showed Sen. Estrada, Napoles, and Ong
together in a party.
The SC adopts the above findings of J. Sandoval-Gutierrez.
 Ong explained to CJ Sereno that the photo was taken in one of
Sen. Estrada’s birthday parties and it would have been rude for
Conclusion of J. Sandoval-Gutierrez
him not to pose with other guests.
 The testimonies of Luy and Sula were not lies.
 Ong denied that he has attended any event hosted by Napoles during or after
o Ong merely denied them and in no way refuted them via an adverse
she had the Kevlar Cases in the Sandiganbayan where she was acquitted.
separate testimony.
 CJ Sereno requested the SC En Banc to investigate Ong’s case.
 Ong did not present Napoles to rebut the testimonies and he failed to consider
that his testimony is likewise hearsay.
o Ong commented that the testimony of Sula was merely hearsay
o He should have presented Msgr. Ramirez and Napoles as witnesses to
o Regarding Sula’s testimony that he visited Napoles’ office, Ong clarified
support his claim regarding their role which enabled him to wear the
that he went there only to talk with Napoles regarding the miraculous
robe of the Black Nazarene.
healing power of the robe of the Black Nazarene of Quiapo which he
learned during Sen. Estrada’s party.
 His act of visiting Napoles’ office is disgraceful and renders him morally unfit as
 Ong claims that Napoles had a way to help him access the
member of the Judiciary and unworthy of the privileges the law confers to him.
statute in order to help him with his prostate cancer.
 Because of this, he wanted to personally go to Napoles’ office
to thank her. According to Ong, Napoles no longer had any  Dishonesty violates Canon 2 on Integrity of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
pending case in the Sandiganbayan as of this moment. o Canon 2 provides in part that judges must ensure that their conduct is
above reproach and must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of
the Judiciary.
 Upon the SC’s finding of possible transgressions of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct, they re-docketed the case and assigned it to retired J. Sandoval-
Gutierrez.  His acts further constitute gross misconduct which violates Canon 4 on Propriety
of the same Code.
o J. Sandoval-Gutierrez examined the statements of Benhur Luy: o Section 1 provides that judges shall avoid impropriety and the
 Ong was Napoles’ contact in the Sandiganbayan appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
 Napoles spent a total of 100M in the Sandiganbayan to bribe.
 Napoles was confident of her acquittal under Ong.  Finally, it is recommended that Ong be found guilty of gross misconduct,
 There was a 25.5M transaction between Napoles and Ong. dishonesty, and impropriety, all in violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
o J. Sandoval-Gutierrez also examined Sula’s statements: and be meted the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all
 Sula was an employee of Napoles and in charge of licenses retirement benefits.
 Ong promised that a TRO would be issued on the PDAF case
 Ong will help her in the Kevlar Cases
 Napoles would fix the PDAF case in the Sandiganbayan RULING: GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT, DISHONESTY, and IMPROPRIETY
DISMISSED from SERVICE with FORFEITURE OF BENEFITS