A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC - IN RE: Biraogo

The case involves the unauthorized release of an unpromulgated ponencia drafted by Justice Ruben T. Reyes in a set of consolidated cases (Limkaichong v. COMELEC, Villando v. COMELEC, Biraogo v. Nograles and Limkaichong, and Paras v. Nograles).
The ponencia was a confidential internal document meant for deliberation and was not to be made public until officially promulgated.
The controversy emerged when Louis C. Biraogo, petitioner in Biraogo v. Nograles and Limkaichong, on December 9, 2008, held a press conference and distributed an undated letter along with what appeared to be a photocopy of the confidential decision.

The Supreme Court, acting in an En Banc session, created an Investigating Committee by Resolution dated December 10, 2008.
The committee was composed of Senior Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Chairman), Associate Justice Renato C. Corona, and Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales (after replacements due to self-inhibition).
The committee’s mandate was to determine the source of the leak and hold accountable those responsible for the unauthorized dissemination of the internal document.

During the En Banc session on July 15, 2008, Justice Reyes circulated his draft ponencia in Gilbert paper for signatures by the Justices.

Although several Justices initially indicated they would concur “in the result,” a decision was later reached to withhold promulgation.
Justice Antonio T. Carpio volunteered to prepare his Reflections on the draft, which circulated for further discussion.

Instructions were given to reprint the second signature page (page 36) in view of discrepancies such as the qualification “in the result” in certain signatures.

The reprinted page was sent to the Office of Justice Nachura for signature, and the document underwent a brief circulation within the office.

After the session, the original “Gilbert copy” containing 14 signatures was transmitted to the Office of the Chief Justice under standard procedures, only to be later retrieved on July 16, 2008 when it was learned that its promulgation had been put on hold.
Between its temporary custody by the staff and the subsequent retrieval, the document was kept in an unlocked drawer within the Office of Justice Reyes in a sealed brown envelope.
On December 9, 2008, despite the “on hold” status, the document (or a photocopy thereof) was leaked to the media through Biraogo’s undated letter.
Subsequent hearings before the Investigating Committee involved testimonies from various court personnel (including Del Rosario, Manabat, Atty. Evangelista, secretaries, utility workers, and even Justice Reyes’s written statement) revealing:

The chain-of-custody and handling procedures of the ponencia.
Inconsistencies in the copies (differences in cover pages, agenda dates, and absence of specific markings such as asterisks and footnotes) that indicate the photocopy leaked to Biraogo was not identical to the official version.
Admissions and denials regarding photocopying, handling, and disclosure of the document.

The Investigating Committee’s comprehensive findings pointed to irregularities and an “undue interest” on the part of Justice Reyes in the swift re-circulation and subsequent promulgation of a revised draft, culminating in the inference that the leak was intentional and originated from the Office of Justice Reyes.

Detailed testimonies highlighted the procedures for drawing up, signing, and circulating draft decisions on Gilbert paper, including:

The issuance and reprinting of the signature page 36.
The transfer and custody of the document through various offices (Justice Reyes’s office, the Office of Justice Nachura, and the Office of the Chief Justice).

Physical evidence indicated that the leaked photocopy (Biraogo’s copy) differed in certain technical details from the officially circulated Gilbert copy.
The investigative proceedings meticulously traced the timeline and the chain-of-custody to determine liability.

Who was ultimately responsible for the photocopying and unauthorized release of the confidential internal document?
Was the leak attributable to mishandling within the custodial chain in Justice Reyes’s office?

Were the standard operating procedures for circulating and safeguarding draft decisions followed by the court personnel?
Did any deviation or disregard of established protocol contribute to the leak?

Does the unauthorized release of the internal deliberation (the unpromulgated ponencia) constitute a breach of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code of Professional Responsibility?
What are the implications of such a breach on the integrity of the judicial system?

Can administrative sanctions and penalties be imposed despite the retirement of a justice?
How do doctrines such as res ipsa loquitur and established precedents on judicial accountability support the imposition of discipline in this matter?

To what extent were actions (or inactions) by other personnel (e.g., Atty. Evangelista and Armando Del Rosario) contributory to the breach?
How should neglect in safeguarding confidential documents be evaluated under existing service rules?