G.R. No. 187273 - Ara vs. Pizarro

Case Summary (G.R. No. 187273)

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Because the decision date is after 1990, the Court applied the 1987 Constitution as the constitutional framework. Other legal instruments expressly referenced and applied in the resolution include: Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (certiorari jurisdiction and standards), the Code of Judicial Conduct (Rule/Canon 5.10 regarding judges’ participation in partisan political activities), Section 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code (definition of “partisan political activities”), and the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 11 and Rule 13.02 governing lawyers’ conduct and public statements).

Procedural History and Key Dates

Petitioner’s counsel first appeared in Sandiganbayan by filing an Omnibus Motion dated 19 May 2003 seeking among other reliefs the declaration that appointment of counsel de officio was functus officio, and seeking notification of further proceedings. Hearings and filings followed (hearing on 30 May 2003; motion filed 9 June 2003 seeking subpoenas and permission to prove alleged “truths” in Justice Panganiban’s book). The Sandiganbayan denied petitioner’s motions (order dated 2 July 2003), petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and later a motion for disqualification of the Sandiganbayan Special Division (14 July 2003). The Sandiganbayan promulgated resolutions denying reconsideration (28 July 2003) and denying disqualification (25 July 2003); these were received by petitioner on 31 July 2003. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Supreme Court, which was resolved by the Court in the resolution summarized here.

Relief Sought by Petitioner

Petitioner sought: (1) disqualification (inhibition) of the members of the Supreme Court from hearing his petition on grounds of alleged partisan political activity (attendance at the “EDSA 2 Rally” and authorizing the assumption of Gloria Macapagal‑Arroyo to the presidency); (2) vacation and setting aside of the assailed Sandiganbayan resolutions denying his motions; and (3) dismissal of Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905 for lack of jurisdiction. In the Sandiganbayan he also sought subpoenas to numerous Supreme Court justices and public officials and sought to introduce and prove the “truth” of statements in Justice Panganiban’s book as part of his defense.

Grounds and Theory Advanced by Counsel

Counsel argued that the Supreme Court justices had violated Rule 5.10 (Code of Judicial Conduct) by participating in partisan political activity, thereby prejudging the legality of President Arroyo’s assumption and rendering the later Supreme Court decision in Estrada v. Arroyo void or a “mockery of justice and due process.” Counsel further maintained that where the acts of public officers are unlawful, they are not acts of the public office and therefore the contested acts could not be attributed to the Supreme Court as an institution (invoking a line of reasoning and a cited authority: Urbano v. Chavez).

Sandiganbayan Rulings and Allegations of Bias Below

The Sandiganbayan Special Division denied the motions presented by petitioner, including the motion for reconsideration and the motion for disqualification, concluding they lacked merit. Petitioner’s counsel complained that during hearings the presiding justices displayed bias and disrespect (quoting alleged remarks), which motivated the disqualification motion. The Sandiganbayan’s denials became the subject of the certiorari petition.

Supreme Court’s Standard for Relief under Rule 65

The Supreme Court emphasized that an extraordinary remedy by certiorari under Rule 65 requires a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found petitioner’s submissions insufficient to meet that high standard. The existence of a mere allegation of partiality or of prior conduct by other justices did not establish the requisite grave abuse by the Sandiganbayan in denying the motions.

Analysis of the Judicial Conduct Allegation (Canon/Rule 5.10)

The Court examined counsel’s reliance on Canon/Rule 5.10 (judicial prohibition against participating in partisan political activities). The Court referenced Section 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code for the statutory meaning of “partisan political activity” and concluded that attendance by justices at an official oath-taking or at comparable official functions does not, by itself, constitute partisan political activity as defined in the election law. The Court treated taking the presidential oath before the Chief Justice and attendance by other justices at such official ceremonies as part of routine, nonpartisan official functions akin to attendance at the State of the Nation Address.

Finality of Prior Supreme Court Decision and Revived Issues

The Court noted that the decision in Estrada v. Arroyo (reported at 353 SCRA 452 and 356 SCRA 108) was a final judgment that conclusively resolved questions about the legality of the ascension of President Arroyo. The Court characterized petitioner’s renewed attack on the validity of that ascension as an attempt to revive an issue already put to rest by final adjudication, which the Court declined to entertain in the present extraordinary proceeding.

Professional Responsibility, Public Statements by Counsel, and Prior Warnings

The Supreme Court addressed counsel Alan Paguia’s public criticisms and media statements attacking the Court and its members. The Court cited the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 13.02 and Canon 11) prohibiting public statements tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party in a pending case and requiring respect toward courts and judicial offic

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 187273)

Case Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 462 Phil. 135, EN BANC, G.R. Nos. 159486-88, November 25, 2003; the resolution recited in the source was initially issued by the Court on 23 September 2003.
The matter reached the Supreme Court as a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada through counsel Attorney Alan F. Paguia.
The petition sought: (1) disqualification (inhibition) of Chief Justice Davide and other members of the Supreme Court from hearing and deciding the petition; (2) vacation and setting aside of the assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan; and (3) dismissal of Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905 pending before the Sandiganbayan for lack of jurisdiction.
The Court, acting per curiam, dismissed the petition for certiorari for gross insufficiency in substance and utter lack of merit, and also ordered a show-cause to Attorney Alan Paguia why he should not be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and officer of the Court; subsequently, Attorney Paguia was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, effective upon receipt.

Parties

Petitioner: President Joseph Ejercito Estrada (represented by Attorney Alan F. Paguia).
Respondents: The Honorable Sandiganbayan (Special Division), Hon. Minita Chico-Nazario, Hon. Edilberto Sandoval, Hon. Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, and the People of the Philippines.
Other persons involved in petitioner’s subpoenas and allegations (as named in petitioner’s filings): Justice Artemio Panganiban, Justice Antonio Carpio, Justice Renato Corona, Secretary Angelo Reyes (Department of National Defense), Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., and Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr.

Reliefs and Principal Grounds Advanced by Petitioner

Petitioner sought disqualification of Supreme Court justices under Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, alleging proscription against participation in partisan political activity had been violated.
Petitioner alleged Supreme Court justices attended the “EDSA 2 Rally” and authorized the assumption of Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the Presidency in violation of the 1987 Constitution, thereby prejudging any later challenge to that act.
Petitioner characterized the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Estrada v. Arroyo (353 SCRA 452 and 356 SCRA 108) as a “patent mockery of justice and due process,” arguing that the justices’ alleged prior acts rendered them incapable of impartial adjudication in matters related to that assumption.
Petitioner sought, alternatively, inclusion in the Sandiganbayan’s resolution of what he labeled the “TRUTH” concerning the justices’ actions on January 20, 2001 (attendance at EDSA 2, authorizing proclamation on ground of “permanent disability” without constitutional proof such as written declaration by the President or majority of the cabinet, and actually proclaiming Arroyo on that ground).

Motions and Filings in the Sandiganbayan

Attorney Paguia made his appearance for petitioner by filing an Omnibus Motion on 19 May 2003 before the Sandiganbayan, asking that appointments of counsels de officio be declared functus officio, that he be notified of subsequent proceedings in the specified criminal cases, and that all criminal cases against his client be dismissed.
During the hearing of the Omnibus Motion on 30 May 2003, petitioner presented portions of the book Reforming the Judiciary by Justice Artemio Panganiban as purported evidence for the defense.
On 9 June 2003, petitioner filed a motion requesting: (a) opportunity to prove the “truth” of statements in Justice Panganiban’s book in relation to alleged prejudgment by Supreme Court justices in Estrada v. Arroyo; and (b) issuance of subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum for multiple persons including Justices Panganiban, Carpio, Corona, Secretary Angelo Reyes, Vice President Arroyo, Senator Pimentel and Chief Justice Davide to testify and bring supporting documents related to their alleged participation in the proclamation of Arroyo on January 20, 2001 and the events leading to that proclamation and the rulings in Estrada v. Arroyo.

Specific Allegations of Bias Against the Sandiganbayan Special Division

Attorney Paguia alleged that during the hearing of his motion for reconsideration on 11 June 2003, the three justices of the Special Division of the Sandiganbayan manifested bias and partiality: (1) Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario allegedly uttered the phrase “Magmumukha naman kaming gago”; (2) Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro allegedly characterized the motion as insignificant even before prosecution comments, remarking that granting Estrada’s motion would result in chaos and disorder.
Based on alleged bias, Attorney Paguia filed on 14 July 2003 a motion for disqualification of the Sandiganbayan justices.

Orders and Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan (Dates and Contents)

On 2 July 2003, the Sandiganbayan issued an order denying petitioner’s Omnibus Motion and motion to dismiss.
Petitioner filed a “Mosyong Pangrekonsiderasyon” of that order.
Petitioner received two assailed resolutions on 31 July 2003:
- A resolution promulgated 30 July 2003 but dated 28 July 2003, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration dated 6 July 2003 with the dispositive language: “WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused-movant Joseph Ejercito Estrada’s ‘Mosyong Pangrekonsiderasyon’ (Na tumutukoy sa Joint Resolution ng Hulyo 2, 2003) dated July 6, 2003 is DENIED for lack of merit.” (Rollo, p. 37.)
- A resolution promulgated 30 July 2003 but dated 25 July 2003, denying petitioner’s motion for disqualification dated 14 July 2003 with the dispositive language: “WHEREFORE, prescinding from all the foregoing, the Court, for want of merit, hereby DENIES the Motion for Disqualification.” (Rollo, p. 48.)

Supreme Court’s Determination on the Petition for Certiorari

The Supreme Court concluded that the instant petition must be DISMISSED for “gross insufficiency in substance and for utter lack of merit.”
The Court found that the Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion — an essential requirement to obtain relief by certiorari under Rule 65.
The Court observed that petitioner simultaneously disclaimed the authority and jurisdiction of Supreme Court members while seeking to elevate the present petition to challenge the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions, a course that lacked substance and merit.
The Court noted petitioner’s attempt to relitigate and revive the already-final question of the legality of Arroyo’s ascension to the Presidency, pointing out that Estrada v. Arroyo is a final judgment that “has long put to end any question pertaining to the legal