GR 159486; (November, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159486-88 November 25, 2003
President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (Special Division), Hon. Minita Chico-Nazario, Hon. Edilberto Sandoval, Hon. Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, and The People of the Philippines, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, through counsel Atty. Alan F. Paguia, filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing Sandiganbayan Resolutions that denied his motions for reconsideration and for the disqualification of the Sandiganbayan justices. The motions stemmed from the denial of his earlier plea to dismiss the criminal cases against him and to include in the court’s resolution alleged “truths” about the Supreme Court justices’ actions during the EDSA II event. Estrada, via Paguia, sought the inhibition of all Supreme Court Justices from hearing his petition, claiming they violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by attending the EDSA II rally and authorizing Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s assumption to the presidency, thereby prejudging any case challenging its legality. He also accused the Sandiganbayan justices of bias, citing their use of colloquial language and remarks during hearings.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the Petition for Certiorari and whether disciplinary action against Atty. Alan Paguia is warranted.
RULING
The Petition is dismissed for utter lack of merit. The Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion, an indispensable requirement for certiorari. Its denial of the motions was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The allegations of bias against its justices are unsubstantiated; their remarks, taken in context, do not prove prejudgment but were reactions to the procedural implications of the motions. The plea for Supreme Court justices’ inhibition is baseless. Their official acts in the context of a national crisis, which were subsequently upheld in Estrada v. Arroyo, cannot be construed as partisan political activity warranting disqualification. The Court emphasized that judges are presumed to act impartially, and mere suspicion is insufficient to overcome this presumption.
Concurrently, Atty. Alan Paguia is indefinitely suspended from the practice of law. His conduct violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. He persistently made public statements imputing sinister motives and questioning the integrity and impartiality of the Court and its members regarding Estrada v. Arroyo, aiming to arouse public opinion and obstruct justice. This disregards Canon 11, which mandates respect for the courts, and Rule 13.02, which prohibits public statements that may influence public sentiment toward a pending case. Despite prior admonitions, Paguia continued his public campaign, demonstrating conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and an officer of the court, necessitating severe disciplinary sanction to uphold judicial integrity and public confidence in the legal system.