I only wrote once about the judiciary in this column. That was when I commented on the poor condition of halls of justice within the region. While there are so many topics about my profession and the legal environment where I move and work worthy to be written, I prefer to write on other things… worrying that I might be accused of taking advantage of this column to advance my profession, not to mention the legal ethics involved.
But this time, I cannot pass upon the story of a judge in Pampanga. I will not mention her name to make the story generic to all. A few months ago in this paper and in one national paper, the lady judge was threatened with both administrative and criminal charges by the Provincial Director of the Philippine National Police (PNP) for allegedly denying an application for search warrant against a notorious syndicate that maintains a shabu and illegal drugs laboratory in the Province. The PD-PNP made it appear that the denial was without any basis and suspected that the judge abused her discretion. He also said in the media that a PDEA chemist was present during the hearing of the application for search warrant but the judge did not bother to ask her any question. Efforts were made to get the side of the judge on the matter. However, our reporter in charge failed to secure one. A press release was issued instead by the judge but never saw print in any paper, yes, including here in Punto! For whatever reason, I cannot surmise.
Weeks passed and the threatened administrative and criminal charges by the PNP were never filed. Was this for press release only? Worse, no Motion for Reconsideration or any action to question the denial of the application for search warrant was filed in court. The issue died in its natural state, like all issues that were allowed spaces in newspapers. However, I can sense that the pain and agony it brought to the subject-judge lingered longer, if not still persisting. I should know because I was once a subject of malicious articles when I was working as the Chief of the Law Division of the Land Registration Authority nine years ago. I tell you, malicious accusations are hard to forget.
Then I chanced upon an Order issued by said judge in one case that I used to handle as defense counsel. In said Order, the judge voluntarily inhibited herself to hear and try the case because the private complainant in said case is the same witness-applicant in the denied application for search warrant. Knowing that she was not granted by the media of full coverage to defend herself on the issue, she brilliantly used the forum of her own Order to cite the reasons why she denied the application.
It appears that the judge thoroughly conducted a hearing on the subject application for search warrant. She even gave time to the applicant to secure the necessary PDEA endorsement and waited for said requirement before conducting the hearing. In said hearing, one of the witnesses testified that he claims ownership of a parcel of land which was sold to another person without his consent. The buyer built three buildings on the property. In 2004, he visited the premises of the place and saw 12 Chinese nationals there. With the presence of the Chinese nationals in 2004 (or probably Chinese looking persons), the witness immediately suspected (having a gut feeling) that they were engaged in manufacturing drugs. On September 19, 2008, he reported to Police Superintendent Gregorio Lim of the Pampanga Provincial Office about the presence of the drug laboratory in the premises. The witness, with two other companions from the police force, went to the premises again. One of them disguised himself as a Japanese national interested to buy land. They were able to get inside the premises of the property twice and on both occasion, they saw bottles which are “uncommon” containing chemicals in one corner of an open warehouse. Some of these bottles were inside the boxes while others were out in the open. It also appears in the Sinumpaang Salaysay of said witness that in 2004, his cousin sold the property to a Chinese, not knowing that said property is actually owned by him (witness).
With the aforesaid evidence, the judge naturally denied the application, as any other judge would do under the same circumstance. How could “gut feeling” and mere “suspicion” be the bases for the issuance of a search warrant? More importantly, the impartiality of the police-witness’ testimony against the supposed subject of search was very evident by his “personal claim” of ownership over the property in dispute. It also appears that contrary to the claim of PD-PNP, records of the case do not bear the presence of PDEA chemist during the hearing of the application. And why would a chemist appear in said hearing where in fact, the police operatives were still in the process of applying for a search warrant to gather the alleged chemicals? If they were able to gather a sample of the alleged chemicals and had that examined by the chemist, the applicants can present such evidence. However, no chemist was actually presented. Clearly, that makes the statement of PD Keith Singian against the judge contemptible and libelous. Lucky that the judge exercised her judicial temperament and did not resort to said action.
I am writing this peace from the point of view of my profession and as an officer of the court who is under obligation to defend the institution from malicious accusations and give it the respect it deserves. This is not to appease the subject judge but more to state to the populace that we have to give respect to our courts, being the last bastion of equality and justice. When we say Your Honor, we refer to the Court and not to the judge presiding it. Hence, when people maliciously attack the actions of the judge, they also attack the actions of the court. You deserve to be defended, Your Honor.
But this time, I cannot pass upon the story of a judge in Pampanga. I will not mention her name to make the story generic to all. A few months ago in this paper and in one national paper, the lady judge was threatened with both administrative and criminal charges by the Provincial Director of the Philippine National Police (PNP) for allegedly denying an application for search warrant against a notorious syndicate that maintains a shabu and illegal drugs laboratory in the Province. The PD-PNP made it appear that the denial was without any basis and suspected that the judge abused her discretion. He also said in the media that a PDEA chemist was present during the hearing of the application for search warrant but the judge did not bother to ask her any question. Efforts were made to get the side of the judge on the matter. However, our reporter in charge failed to secure one. A press release was issued instead by the judge but never saw print in any paper, yes, including here in Punto! For whatever reason, I cannot surmise.
Weeks passed and the threatened administrative and criminal charges by the PNP were never filed. Was this for press release only? Worse, no Motion for Reconsideration or any action to question the denial of the application for search warrant was filed in court. The issue died in its natural state, like all issues that were allowed spaces in newspapers. However, I can sense that the pain and agony it brought to the subject-judge lingered longer, if not still persisting. I should know because I was once a subject of malicious articles when I was working as the Chief of the Law Division of the Land Registration Authority nine years ago. I tell you, malicious accusations are hard to forget.
Then I chanced upon an Order issued by said judge in one case that I used to handle as defense counsel. In said Order, the judge voluntarily inhibited herself to hear and try the case because the private complainant in said case is the same witness-applicant in the denied application for search warrant. Knowing that she was not granted by the media of full coverage to defend herself on the issue, she brilliantly used the forum of her own Order to cite the reasons why she denied the application.
It appears that the judge thoroughly conducted a hearing on the subject application for search warrant. She even gave time to the applicant to secure the necessary PDEA endorsement and waited for said requirement before conducting the hearing. In said hearing, one of the witnesses testified that he claims ownership of a parcel of land which was sold to another person without his consent. The buyer built three buildings on the property. In 2004, he visited the premises of the place and saw 12 Chinese nationals there. With the presence of the Chinese nationals in 2004 (or probably Chinese looking persons), the witness immediately suspected (having a gut feeling) that they were engaged in manufacturing drugs. On September 19, 2008, he reported to Police Superintendent Gregorio Lim of the Pampanga Provincial Office about the presence of the drug laboratory in the premises. The witness, with two other companions from the police force, went to the premises again. One of them disguised himself as a Japanese national interested to buy land. They were able to get inside the premises of the property twice and on both occasion, they saw bottles which are “uncommon” containing chemicals in one corner of an open warehouse. Some of these bottles were inside the boxes while others were out in the open. It also appears in the Sinumpaang Salaysay of said witness that in 2004, his cousin sold the property to a Chinese, not knowing that said property is actually owned by him (witness).
With the aforesaid evidence, the judge naturally denied the application, as any other judge would do under the same circumstance. How could “gut feeling” and mere “suspicion” be the bases for the issuance of a search warrant? More importantly, the impartiality of the police-witness’ testimony against the supposed subject of search was very evident by his “personal claim” of ownership over the property in dispute. It also appears that contrary to the claim of PD-PNP, records of the case do not bear the presence of PDEA chemist during the hearing of the application. And why would a chemist appear in said hearing where in fact, the police operatives were still in the process of applying for a search warrant to gather the alleged chemicals? If they were able to gather a sample of the alleged chemicals and had that examined by the chemist, the applicants can present such evidence. However, no chemist was actually presented. Clearly, that makes the statement of PD Keith Singian against the judge contemptible and libelous. Lucky that the judge exercised her judicial temperament and did not resort to said action.
I am writing this peace from the point of view of my profession and as an officer of the court who is under obligation to defend the institution from malicious accusations and give it the respect it deserves. This is not to appease the subject judge but more to state to the populace that we have to give respect to our courts, being the last bastion of equality and justice. When we say Your Honor, we refer to the Court and not to the judge presiding it. Hence, when people maliciously attack the actions of the judge, they also attack the actions of the court. You deserve to be defended, Your Honor.
