By Benjamin B. Pulta
The Daily Tribune
The Daily Tribune
Proponents of Chief Justice Renato Corona’s conviction yesterday before the Senate impeachment court repeatedly bandied about a ruling by the high court which ordered the dismissal from service of a lower court employee found guilty of failing
to disclose her ownership of a market stall in her statement of assets.
The prosecutors and senator-judges alike cited the supposed disparity in the dispensation of justice for “lowly” persons and senior government officials.
Online observers commented that the dismissed clerk probably was elated by her revenge on Corona for having ordered her dismissal as suggested by the senator-judges citing the SC ruling.
But contrary to impressions, Corona was appointed to the high tribunal in 2002 and had no hand in the said SC per curiam ruling which was decided in 1997.
The said ruling, Rabe v. Flores, was a decision penned during the time of now retired Chief Justice Andres Narvasa. As in other SC decisions , the ruling is a precedent unless otherwise overturned or clarified by the SC in later cases.
Upon his retirement, Narvasa would later represent former President Joseph Estrada in the latter’s own aborted impeachment before the senate in 2001.
Three other magistrates who concurred in the decision later became chief justices themselves namely Hilario Davide Jr., Reynato Puno and Artemio Panganiban.
Other members of the SC at the time were Teodoro Padilla, Florenz Regalado, Flerida Ruth Romero, Josue Bellosillo, Jose Melo, Jose Vitug, Santiago Kapunan, Vicente Mendoza, Ricardo Francisco, Regino Hermosisima, Jr. and Justo P. Torres, Jr.
The Narvasa court ruled on the complaint filed against Panabo, Davao Regional Trial Court (RTC Br. IV) interpreter Delsa Flores by a certain Narita Rabe.
During the informal preliminary inquiry by the court administrator at the time, Rabe claimed that on Aug. 14, 1995 at around 4 o’clock in the afternoon, Flores, went to the stall she occupied and while there, she made several defamatory utterances.
Flores then attempted to inflict injury by scratching her face and challenging her to a fist fight and then destroying the stall she occupied by removing the wooden fence and the GI sheets with the help of her husband.
The court employee loaded the materials on a motor vehicle and brought them to the police station of Panabo.
Flores committed the aforementioned acts during office hours and displayed conduct unbecoming a government employee.
An administrative complaint for “Conduct Unbecoming a Government Employee, Acts Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service and Abuse of Authority” dated Aug. 18, 1995, was subsequently filed by Rabe.
The court however issued a resolution dated Jan. 17, 1996, absolving her of the charge. In the same resolution, however, the court required respondent to explain why she should not be administratively dealt with for her failure to disclose said business interest in her sworn statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections, and Identification of Relatives in the Government Service for the years 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994.
The Narvasa court also ordered Flores to explain why she has not divested herself of her interest in said business within sixty (60) days from her assumption into office.
No comments:
Post a Comment