Bar Matter No. 491. October 06, 1989
IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE 1989 ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES.
PER CURIAM:
In the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (hereafter “IBP”) held on June 3, 1989 at the Philippine International Convention
Center (or PICC), the following were elected by the House of Delegates
(composed of 120 chapter presidents or their alternates) and proclaimed as
officers:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The newly-elected
officers were set to take their oath of office on July 4, 1989, before the Supreme Court en banc. However, disturbed by the widespread reports
received by some members of the Court from lawyers who had witnessed or
participated in the proceedings and the adverse comments published in the
columns of some newspapers about the intensive electioneering and overspending
by the candidates, led by the main protagonists for the office of president of
the association, namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged
use of government planes, and the officious intervention of certain
public officials to influence the voting, all of which were done in violation
of the IBP By-Laws which prohibit such activities, the Supreme Court en banc, exercising
its power of supervision over the Integrated Bar, resolved to suspend the
oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect and to inquire into the veracity of the
reports.
It should be stated at
the outset that the election process itself (i.e. the voting and the canvassing
of votes on June 3, 1989) which was conducted by the “IBP Comelec,” headed by Justice Reynato
Puno of
the Court of Appeals, was unanimously adjudged by the participants and
observers to be above board. For Justice
Puno took it upon himself to device safeguards to
prevent tampering with, and marking of the ballots.
What the Court viewed
with considerable concern was the reported electioneering and extravagance that
characterized the campaign conducted by the three candidates for president of
the IBP.
I. MEDIA ACCOUNT OF
THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN. –
Emil Jurado,
in his column “IBP Group Questions Drilon
Election” (Manila Standard, Sunday, June 17, 1989), Luis Mauricio, in two
successive columns: “The Invertebrated Bar” (Malaya, June 10, 1989) and
“The Disintegrating Bar” (Malaya, June 20, 1989), and Teodoro Locsin, Jr. in an
article, entitled “Pam-Pam” (The Philippines Free Press, July 8, 1989), and the editorial, entitled “Wrong
Forum” of the Daily Globe (June 8, 1989), were unanimously critical of the
“vote-buying and pressure tactics” allegedly employed in the campaign
by the three principal candidates:
Attys. Violeta C. Drilon,
Nereo Paculdo and Ramon Nisce who reportedly “poured heart, soul, money and
influence to win over the 120 IBP delegates.”
Mr. Jurado
mentioned the resentment of Atty. Drilon’s rivals who
felt at a disadvantage because Atty. Drilon allegedly used PNB helicopters to visit far-flung
IBP chapters on the pretext of distributing Bigay
Puso donations, and she had the added advantage of
having regional directors and labor arbiters of the Department of Labor and
Employment (who had been granted leaves of absence by her husband, the Labor
Secretary) campaigning for her. Jurado’s informants alleged that there was rampant
vote-buying by some members of the U.P. Sigma Rho Fraternity (Secretary Drilon’s
fraternity), as well as by one lawyers of ACCRA (Angara,
Concepcion, Cruz, Regala
and Abello Law Office) where Mrs. Drilon
is employed, and that government positions were promised to others by the
office of the Labor Secretary.
Mr. Mauricio in his column wrote about
the same matters and, in addition, mentioned “talk of personnel of the Department of Labor, especially
conciliators and employers, notably Chinese Filipinos, giving aid and
comfort to her (Atty. Drilon’s) candidacy,” the
billeting of out-of-town delegates in plush
hotels where they were reportedly “wined and dined continuously, womened, and subjected to endless haggling over the price
of their votes x x x”
which allegedly “ranged from P15,000 to P20,000, and, on the day of the
election, some twelve to twenty votes which were believed crucial, appreciated
to P50,000.”
In his second column, Mr.
Mauricio mentioned “how a top official of the judiciary allegedly involved
himself in IBP politics on election day by closeting himself with campaigners as they plotted their
election strategy in a room of the PICC (the Philippine International
Convention Center where the convention/election were held) during a recess x x x.”
Mr. Locsin
in his column and editorial substantially reechoed Mauricio’s reports with some embellishments.
II. THE COURT’S DECISION TO
INVESTIGATE. –
Responding to the
critical reports, the Court, in its en banc resolution dated June 15, 1989, directed the
outgoing and in-coming members of the IBP Board of Governors, the principal
officers and Chairman of the House of Delegates to appear before it on Tuesday,
June 20, 1989, at 2:00 o’clock p.m., and there to inform the Court on the
veracity of the aforementioned reports and to recommend, for the consideration
of the Courts, appropriate approaches to the problem of confirming and strengthening
adherence to the fundamental principles
of the IBP.
In that resolution the
Court “call[ed] to mind that a basic postulate of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), heavily stressed at
the time of its organization and commencement of existence, is that
the IBP shall be non-political in character
and that there shall be no lobbying nor campaigning in
the choice of members of the Board of Governors and of the House of
Delegates, and of the IBP officers, national, or regional, or chapter. The fundamental assumption was that officers, delegates and governors would be chosen on the basis of professional merit and willingness and ability to serve.”
The resolution went on to
say that the “Court is deeply disturbed to note that in connection with
the election of members of the Board
of Governors and of the House of Delegates, there is a widespread belief, based on reports carried by media
and transmitted as well by word of mouth,
that there was extensive and intensive campaigning
by candidates for IBP positions as well as expenditure of considerable sums of
money by candidates, including vote-buying, direct or indirect.”
The venerable retired Supreme Court Justice and IBP President
Emeritus, Jose B.L. Reyes attended the dialogue, upon invitation of the Court,
to give counsel and advice. The meeting
between the Court en banc
on the one hand, and the outgoing and in-coming IBP officers on the other, was
an informal one.
Thereafter, the Court resolved to conduct a formal inquiry to
determine whether the prohibited acts and activities enumerated in the IBP
By-Laws were committed before and during the 1989 elections of IBP’s national
officers.
The Court en banc formed a committee and designated
Senior Associate Justice Andres R. Narvasa, as
Chairman, and Associate Justices Teodoro R. Padilla,
Emilio A. Gancayco, Abraham F. Sarmiento,
and Carolina C. Griño-Aquino, as members, to conduct the inquiry.
The Clerk of Court,
Atty. Daniel Martinez, acted as the committee’s Recording Secretary.
A total of forty-nine (49) witnesses appeared and testified in response to
subpoenas issued by the Court to shed
light on the conduct of the elections.
The managers of three five-star hotels — the Philippine Plaza, the
Hyatt, and the Holiday Inn where the three protagonists (Drilon, Nisce, and Paculdo) allegedly set up their respective headquarters and
where they billeted their supporters — were summoned. The officers of the Philippine National Bank
and the Air Transport Office were called to enlighten the Court on the charge that an IBP presidential candidate
and the members of her slate used PNB planes to ferry them to distant
places in their campaign to win the
votes of delegates. The Philippine Airlines officials were called
to testify on the charge that some candidates gave free air fares to delegates
to the convention. Officials of the
Labor Department were also called to enable the Court to ascertain the truth of
the reports that labor officials openly campaigned or worked for the election
of Atty. Drilon.
The newspaper columnists, Messrs. Luis Mauricio, Jesus Bigornia, and Emil Jurado were subpoenaed to determine the
nature of their sources of information relative to the IBP elections. Their stories were based, they said, on
letters, phone calls and personal interviews with persons who claimed to have
knowledge of the facts, but whom they, invoking the Press Freedom Law, refused
to identify.
The Committee has since submitted its Report after receiving, and
analyzing and assessing evidence given by such persons as were perceived to
have direct and personal knowledge of the relevant facts; and the Court, after
deliberating thereon, has Resolved to accept and adopt the same.
III. PROHIBITED ACTS AND
PRACTICES UNDER IBP BY-LAWS. –
Article I, Section 4 of
the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the “strictly non-political” character of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, thus:
“SEC. 4. Non-political Bar. – The Integrated Bar is strictly non-political,
and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited
and shall be penalized accordingly. No
lawyer holding an elective, judicial,
quasi-judicial, or prosecutor
office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for
election or appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter
thereof. A Delegate, Governor, officer
or employee of the Integrated Bar, or an officer or employee of any Chapter
thereof shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his position
as of the moment he files his certificate of candidacy for any elective public
office or accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality
thereof.”
Section 14 of the same By-laws enumerates the prohibited
acts relative to IBP elections:
“SEC. 14. Prohibited acts and
practices relative to elections.
– The following acts and practices relative to election are prohibited,
whether committed by a candidate for any elective office in the Integrated Bar or by any other member, directly or
indirectly, in any form or manner,
by himself or through another person.
(a)
Distribution, except on
election day, of election campaign material;
(b)
Distribution, on election
day, of election campaign material other than a statement of the biodata of a candidate on not more than one page of a
legal-size sheet of paper; or causing distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than those
authorized by the officer presiding at the elections;
(c)
Campaigning for or against
any candidate, while holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof;
(d)
Formation of tickets,
single slates, or combinations of candidates, as well as the advertisement
thereof;
(e)
For the purpose of inducing or
influencing a member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or against a
candidate. (1) payment
of the dues or other indebtedness of any member; (2) giving of food, drink,
entertainment, transportation or any article of value, or any similar
consideration to any person; or (3) making a promise or causing an expenditure
to be made, offered or promised to any person.”
Section 12(d) of the
By-Laws prescribes sanctions for violations of the above rules:
“(d) Any violation of the rules
governing elections or commission of any of the prohibited acts and practices
defined in Section 14 (Prohibited Acts and Practices relative to elections) of
the by-laws of the Integrated Bar shall be a ground for the disqualification
of a candidate or his removal from office if elected, without prejudice to the
imposition of sanctions upon any erring member pursuant to the By-laws of the
Integrated Bar.”
At the formal
investigation which was conducted by the investigating committee, the following violations were established:
(1) Prohibited campaigning and solicitation of
votes by the candidates for president, executive vice-president, the officers of the House of Delegates and
Board of Governors.
The three candidates for
IBP president – Drilon, Nisce
and Paculdo – began travelling
around the country to solicit
the votes of delegates as early as April 1989. Upon the invitation of IBP
President, Leon Garcia, Jr. (t.s.n., July 13, 1989, p. 4), they attended the Bench and
Bar dialogues held in Cotabato in April 1989 (t.s.n.,
June 29, 1989, p. 123), in Tagaytay City, Pampanga, and in Baguio City
(during the conference of chapter presidents of Northern Luzon (t.s.n., July 3, 1989, p. 113; t.s.n.,
July 10, p. 41; t.s.n., July 13, p. 47) where
they announced their candidacies and met the chapter presidents.
Atty. Nisce admitted that he went around the country seeking the help of IBP
chapter officers, soliciting their votes, and securing their written
endorsements. He
personally hand-carried nomination forms and requested the chapter presidents
and delegates to fill up and sign the forms to formalize their commitment to
his nomination for IBP President. He
started campaigning and distributing the nomination forms in March 1989 after
the chapter elections which determined the membership of the House of Delegates
composed of the 120 chapter presidents (t.s.n., June 29,
1989, pp. 82-86). He
obtained forty (40) commitments. He
submitted photocopies of his nomination forms which read:
“Nomination Form
I
Join in Nominating
RAMON
M. NISCE
as
National
President of the
Integrated Bar of the
Philippines
___________________ _________________
Chapter Signature”
Among those who signed the nomination forms were: Onofre P. Tejada, Candido P. Balbin, Jr., Conizado V. Posadas, Quirico L. Quirico, Ernesto S. Salun-at,
Gloria C. Agunos, Oscar B. Bernardo, Feliciano F. Wycoco, Amor L. Ibarra, Jose M. Atienza, Jose N. Contreras, Romeo T. Mendoza, Leo C. Medialdea, Jr., Paulino G. Clarin, Julius Z. Neri, Roem J. Arbolado, Democrito M. Perez, Abelardo Fermin, Diosdado B. Villarin, Jr., Daniel C. Macaraeg,
Confesor R. Sansano, Dionisio E. Bala, Jr. Ernesto A. Amores, Romeo V. Pefianco, Augurio C. Pamintuan, Atlee T. Viray, Ceferino C. Cabanas, Jose
S. Buban, Diosdado Z. Reloj, Jr., Cesar
C. Viola, Oscar C. Fernandez, Ricardo B. Teruel, Rodrigo R. Flores,
Sixto Marella, Jr., Arsenio
C. Villalon,
Renato F. Ronquillo, Antonio G.
Nalapol, Romualdo A. Din, Jr., Jose P. Icaonapo,
Jr., and Manuel S. Pecson.
Atty. Nisce admitted that he reserved
rooms at the Hyatt Hotel based on the commitments he had obtained (t.s.n., June 29,
1989, pp. 82-85).
Unfortunately, despite those formal commitments, he obtained only 14
votes in the election (t.s.n., June 29,
1989, p. 86). The reason, he said, is that some of those
who had committed their votes to him were “manipulated, intimidated, pressured,
or remunerated” (t.s.n., June 29, 1989, pp.,
86-95; Exhibit “M-4-Nisce”, t.s.n.,
July 4, 1989, pp. 100-104).
(2) Use of PNB plane in the campaign. –
The records of the
Philippine National Bank (Exhibit C-1-Crudo and Exhibit C-2-Crudo) show that
Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran,
Jr. of the Department of Environment & Natural Resources (DENR) borrowed a
plane from the Philippine National Bank for his Bicol
CORD (Cabinet Officers for Regional Development) Assistant, Undersecretary Antonio Tria. The plane manifest (Exh. C–2–Crudo)
listed Atty. Violeta
Drilon, Arturo Tusi (Tiu), Assistant Secretary for Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) Tony Tria, Atty. Gladys Tiongco, and Amy Wong. Except for Tony Tria, the rest of the passengers were IBP
candidates.
Atty. Drilon
admitted that she “hitched” a ride on a PNB plane. She said that she was informed by Atty. Tiu about the availability of a PNB plane (t.s.n., July 3, 1989, pp. 116-118).
Atty. Tiu,
who ran for the position of IBP executive vice-president in the Drilon ticket, testified that sometime in May 1989 he failed to obtain booking from the Philippine Airlines for
the projected trip of his group to Bicol. He went to the DENR allegedly to follow up
some papers for a client. While at the
DENR, he learned that Assistant Secretary Tria was
going on an official business in Bicol for Secretary Fulgencio Factoran and that he
would be taking a PNB plane. As
Assistant Secretary Tria is his fraternity brother, he asked if he, together with Drilon group, could
hitch a ride on the plane to Bicol. His request was granted. Their purpose in going to Bicol
was to assess their chances in the IBP elections. The Drilon company talked with the IBP chapter presidents in Daet, Naga, and Legaspi, and asked for their support (t.s.n.,
July 10, 1989, pp. 5-49).
Assistant Secretary
Antonio S. Tria confirmed the use of a PNB plane by
Atty. Drilon and her group. He recalled that on May 23,
1989, DENR Secretary
Factoran instructed him to go to Bicol
to monitor certain regional development projects there and to survey the
effect of the typhoon that hit the region in the middle of May. On the same day, Atty. Tiu, a fraternity brother
(meaning that Tiu belongs to the Sigma Rho fraternity)
went to the DENR office and requested the Secretary (Factoran)
if he (Tiu) could be allowed to hitch a ride on the plane. Assistant Secretary Tria,
together with the Drilon group which included
Attorneys Drilon, Grapilon, Amy Wong, Gladys Tiongco, and Tiu, took off at the Domestic Airport bound for Naga, Daet and Legaspi. In Legaspi the Drilon groups had lunch
with Atty. Vicente Real, Jr., an IBP chapter president (t.s,n., July 10, 1989, pp. 54-69).
(3)
Formation of tickets and single slates. –
The three candidates, Paculdo, Nisce and Drilon, admitted having
formed their own slates for the election of IBP national officers on June 3, 1989.
Atty. Paculdo’s slate consisted
of: himself for President; Bella D. Tiro, for Executive Vice-President; and for Governors: Justiniano P.
Cortez (Northern Luzon), Oscar C. Fernandez (Central Luzon), Mario C.V. Jalandoni (Greater Manila), Petronilo
A. de la Cruz (Southern Luzon), Teodorico C. Almine, Jr. (Bicolandia), Ricardo
B. Teruel (Western Visayas),
Porfirio P. Siyangco
(Eastern Visayas), Jesus S. Anonat
(Western Mindanao), Guerrero A. Adaza, Jr. (Eastern Mindanao) (Exhibit M-Nisce).
The Drilon ticket consisted of: Violeta C. Drilon for President, Arturo Tiu
for Executive Vice President, Salvador Lao for Chairman of the House of
Delegates, and, for Governors: Basil Rupisan (Northern Luzon), Acong Atienza (Central Luzon), Amy Wong (Metro Manila), Jose Grapilon (Southern Tagalog), Teodoro Almine (Bicolandia), Baldomero Estenzo (Eastern Visayas), Joelito Barrera (Western Visayas),
Gladys Tiongco (Eastern Mindanao), Simeon Datumanong (Western Mindanao) (Exhibit’ M -1 Nisce).
Atty. Ramon N. Nisce‘s line-up listed himself and Confessor B, Sansano, Benjamin B. Bernardino, Antonio L. Nalapo, Renato F. Ronquillo, Gloria C. Agunos,
Mario Valderrama, Candido
P. Balbin, Jr., Oscar C. Fernandez, Cesar G. Viola, Leo C. Medialdea,
Jr., Vicente P. Tordilla, Jr., Jose S. Buban, Joel A. Llosa, Jesus T. Albacite, and Oscar V. Badelles.
(4)
Giving free transportation to out-of-town delegates and
alternates.
Atty. Niece admitted
having bought plane tickets for some delegates to the convention. He mentioned Oscar Badelles
to whom he gave four round-trip tickets (worth about P10,000)
from Iligan City to Manila and back.
Badelles was a voting delegate. Niece, however, failed to get a written
commitment from him because Atty. Medialdea assured
him (Nisce) “sigurado na ‘yan, h’wag
mo nang papirmahin.”
Badelles won as sergeant-at-arms, not in Nisce’s ticket, but in that of Drilon.
Badelles admitted that Nisce
sent him three airplane tickets, but he (Badelles)
said that he did not use them, because if he did, he would be committed to Nisce, and he (Badelles) did not want to be
committed (t.s.n., July 4, 1989, pp. 77-79, 95-96).
Nisce also
sent a plane ticket to Atty. Atilano, who was his candidate, and another ticket to Mrs.
Linda Lim of Zamboanga.
Records of the Philippine
Airlines showed that Atty. Nisce paid for the plane tickets of Vicente Real, Jr. (Exh. D-1-Calica), Romeo Fortes (Exh. D-1-Calica), Cesar Batica (Exh. D-2-Calica), Jose Buban of Leyte (Exh. D-2-Calica), Delsanto Resuello (Exh. D-3-Calica), and Ceferino Cabanas (Exh. D-3-Calica).
In spite of his efforts and expense, only one of Nisce’s candidates won:
Renato Ronquillo of Manila
4, as Secretary of the House of Delegates (t.s.n.
July 3, p. 161).
(5)
Giving free hotel
accommodations, food, drinks, entertainment to delegates.
(a) ATTY.
NEREO PACULDO –
Atty. Paculdo alleged that he booked 24
regular rooms and three suites at the Holiday Inn, which served as his
headquarters. The 24 rooms were to be
occupied by his staff (mostly ladies) and the
IBP delegates. The three suites
were to be occupied by himself, the officers of the Capitol Bar Association,
and Atty. Mario Jalandoni. He paid P150,000 for
the hotel bills of his delegates at the Holiday Inn, where a room cost P990 per
day with breakfast.
Those listed as guests of Atty. Paculdo
at the Holiday Inn were: Ernesto C.
Perez, Tolomeo Ligutan,
Judge Alfonso Combong, Ricardo Caliwag,
Antonio Bisnar,
Benedicto Balajadia, Jesus
Castro, Restituto Villanueva, Serapio
Cribe, Juanito Subia, Teodorico J. Almine, Rudy Gumban, Roem Arbolado, Ricardo Teruel, Shirley Moises, Ramon Roco, Alberto Trinidad, Teodoro Quicoy, Manito Lucero, Fred Cledera,
Vicente Tordilla, Julian Ocampo,
Francisco, Felizmenio, Marvel Clavecilla,
Amador Capiral, Eufronio Maristela, Porfirio Siyangco, William Llanes, Jr., Marciano Neri, Guerrero Adaza, Diosdado Peralta, Luis C. Formilleza, Jr., Deniocrito
Perez, Bruno Flores, Dennis Rendon, Judge Ceferino Chan, Mario Jalandoni,
Kenneth Siruelo, Bella Tiro,
Antonio Santos, Tiburcio Edano,
James Tan, Cesilo A. Adaza,
Francisco Roxas, Angelita Gacutan, Jesse Pimentel, Judge Jaime Hamoy,
Jesus Anonat, Carlos Egay,
Judge Carlito Eisma, Judge
Jesus Carbon, Joven Zach, and Benjamin Padon.
Noel de Guzman, Holiday Inn’s credit manager, testified that
Atty. Paculdo booked 52 (not 24) rooms, including the
presidential suite, which was used as the Secretariat. The group bookings were made by Atty. Gloria Paculdo, the wife of Nereo Paculdo (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. 63-68). The total sum of P227,114.89
was paid to Holiday Inn for the use of the rooms.
(b) ATTY. VIOLETA C. DRILON
The delegates and supporters of Atty. Drilon
were billeted at the Philippine Plaza Hotel where her campaign manager, Atty. Renato Callanta, booked 40 rooms,
5 of which were suites. According to Ms.
Villanueva, Philippine Plaza banquet and conventions manager, the contract that
Atty. Callanta signed with the Philippine Plaza was
made in the name of the “IBP c/o Atty. Callanta.”
Mrs. Lourdes Juco, a sales manager of
the Philippine Plaza, recalled that it was Mr. Mariano Benedicto
who first came to book rooms for the IBP delegates. She suggested that he obtain a group (or
discounted) rate. He gave her the name
of Atty. Callanta who would make the arrangements
with her. Mr. Benedicto
turned out to be the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE).
The total sum of P316,411.53 was paid by
Atty. Callanta for the rooms, food, and beverages
consumed by the Drilon group, with an unpaid balance
of P302,197.30. Per Attorney Daniel
Martinez’s last telephone conversation with Ms. Villanueva, Atty. Callanta still has an outstanding account of P232,782.65 at Philippine Plaza.
Atty. Callanta admitted that he signed
the contract for 40 rooms at the Philippine Plaza. He made a down payment of P123,000. His
“working sheet” showed that the following persons contributed for
that down payment:
(a) Nilo Peña (Quasha Law Office) –
P25,000
(b) Antonio Carpio – 20,000
(c) Toto Ferrer (Carpio Law Office) –
10,000
(d) Jay Castro –
10,000
(e) Danny Deen – 20,000
(f) Angangco Tan (Angara Law Office) – 10,000
(g) Alfonso Reyno – 20,000
(h) Cosme Rossel – 15,300
(t.s.n.
July 4, 1989, pp. 3-4).
Atty. Callanta explained that the above
listed persons have been contributing money every time the IBP embarks on a
project. This time, they contributed so that their partners or associates
could attend the legal aid seminal and the IBP convention too.
Atty. Drilon alleged that she did not
know that Atty. Callanta had billeted her delegates
at the Philippine Plaza. She allegedly
did not also know in whose name the room she occupied was registered. But she did ask for a room where she could
rest during the convention. She
admitted, however, that she paid for her hotel room and meals to Atty. Callanta,
through Atty. Loanzon (t.s.n.
July 3, 1989).
The following were listed as having occupied the rooms reserved
by Atty. Callanta at the Philippine Plaza: Violeta Drilon Victoria A. Verciles,
Victoria C. Loanzon,
Leopoldo A. Consulto,
Ador Lao, Victoria Borra,
Aimee Wong, Callanta, Peña,
Tiu, Gallardo, Acong, Atienza, D. Bernardo, Amores, Silao, Caingal, Manuel Yuson, Simeon Datumanong, Manuel Pecson, Sixto Marella, Joselito Barrera, Radon,
Macalalag, Oscar Badelles,
Antonio Acyatan, Ildefonso
C. Puerto, Nestor Atienza, Gil Batula,
Array Corot, Dimakuta Corot, Romeo Fortez, Irving Petilla, Teodoro Palma, Gil
Palma, Danilo Deen, Delsanto, Resuello, Araneta, Vicente Real, Sylvio Casuncad, Espina, Guerrero,
Julius Neri, Linda Lim, Ben Lim, C. Batica, Luis Formilleza, Felix Macalag, Mariano Benedicto II, Atilano, Araneta, Renato Callanta.
Atty. Nilo Peña admitted
that the Quasha Law Office of which he is a senior
partner, gave P25,000 to Callanta for rooms at the Philippine Plaza so that some
members of his law firm could campaign
for the Drilon group (t.s.n.
July 5, 1989, pp. 76-78) during the legal aid seminar and the IBP
convention. Most of the members of his
law firm are fraternity brothers of Secretary Drilon
(meaning, members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity). He admitted being sympathetic to the candidacy of Atty. Drilon
and the members of her slate, two of whom, — Jose Grapilon
and Simeon Datumanong -? are Sigma Rhoans. They
consider Atty. Drilon as a “sigma rho sister,” her
husband being a sigma rhoan.
Atty. Antonio Carpio, also a Sigma Rhoan, reserved a room for the members of his own firm who
attended the legal aid seminar and the convention. He made the
reservation through Atty. Callanta to whom he paid P20,000
(t.s.n. July
6, 1989, pp. 30-34).
Atty. Carpio assisted Atty. Drilon in her
campaign during the convention, by soliciting the votes of delegates he knew, like Atty. Albacite,
his former teacher (but the latter was already committed to Nisce),
and Atty. Romy Fortes, a classmate of his in the U.P.
College of Law (t.s.n. July 6, 1989, pp. 22, 29, 39).
(c)
ATTY. RAMON NISCE.
Atty. Nisce, through his brother-in-law, Ricardo Paras, entered into a contract with the Hyatt Hotel for a
total of 29 rooms plus one (1) seventh-floor room. He made a downpayment
of P20,000 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, p. 58) on April 20, 1989, and P37,632.45 on May 10, or a total of
P57,632.45.
Ms. Cecile Flores, Ms. Milagros Ocampo,
and Mr. Ramon Jacinto, the sales department
manager, credit manager, and reservation manager, respectively of the Hyatt,
testified that Atty. Nisce’s bill amounted to P216,127.74
(t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. 57-58; Exhibits E-Flores,
F-Jacinto, G-Ocampo).
As earlier mentioned, Atty. Nisce
admitted that he reserved rooms for those who committed themselves to his
candidacy.
The hotel guests of Atty.
Nisce were:
Gloria Agunos, Dennis Habanel,
B. Batula, John E. Asuncion, Reynaldo Cortes, Lourdes
Santos, Elmer Datuin, Romualdo
Din, Antonio Nalapo, Israel Damasco,
Candido Balbin, Serrano Balot, Ibarra, Joel Llosa, Eltanal, Ruperto, Asuncion,
Q. Pilotin, Reymundo P.
Guzman, Zoilo Aguinaldo, Clarin, R. Ronquillo, Dominador Carillo, Filomeno Balinas, Ernesto Sabulan, Yusop Pangadapun, A. Viray, Icampo, Abelardo Fermin, C. Quiaoit, Augurio Pamintuan, Daniel Macaraeg, Onofre Tejada.
(6)
Campaigning by labor officials for Atty. Violeta
Drilon.
In
violation of the prohibition against “campaigning for or against a
candidate while holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government” (Sec. 14[c],
Art. I,
IBP By?Laws). Mariano E. Benedicto
II, Assistant Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment, testified that he
took a leave of absence from his office to attend the IBP convention. He stayed at the Philippine Plaza with the Drilon group admittedly to give “some moral assistance”
to Atty. Violeta Drilon. He did so because he is a member of the Sigma
Rho Fraternity.
When asked about the significance
of Sigma Rho, Secretary Benedicto
explained: “More than the husband
of Mrs. Drilon being my boss, the significance there
is that the husband is my brother in the Sigma Rho.”
He cheered up Mrs. Drilon when her spirits were low. He talked to her immediate circle which
included Art Tiu, Tony Carpio,
Nilo Peña, Amy Wong, Atty. Grapilon, Victor Lazatin and Boy Reyno. They assessed
the progress of the campaign, and measured the strengths and weaknesses of the
other groups. The group had sessions as
early as the later part of May.
Room 114, the suite listed in the name of Assistant Secretary Benedicto toted up a bill of P23,110
during the 2-day IBP convention/election.
A total of 113 phone calls (amounting to P1,356)
were recorded as emanating from his room.
Opposite Room 114, was Room 112, also a suite, listed in the
names of Mrs. Drilon, Gladys Tiongco
(candidate for Governor, Eastern Mindanao) and Amy Wong (candidate for
Governor, Metro Manila). These two rooms
served as the “action center” or “war room” where campaign
strategies were discussed before and during the convention. It was in these rooms where the supporters of
the Driven group, like Attys. Carpio, Callanta, Benedicto, the Quasha and the ACCRA
lawyers met to plot their moves.
(7)
Paying the dues or other
indebtedness of any member (Sec. 14[e], IBP By-Laws).
Atty. Teresita C. Sison,
IBP Treasurer, testified that she has heard of candidates paying the IBP dues
of lawyers who promised to vote for or support them, but she has no way of
ascertaining whether it was a candidate who paid the delinquent dues of
another, because the receipts are issued in the name of the member for whom payment is made (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. 24-28).
She has noticed, though, that there is an upsurge of payments in
March, April, May during any election year.
This year, the collections increased by P100,000 over that of last year
(a non-election year) — from P1,413,425 to P1,524,875 (t.s.n.
June 28, 1989, p. 25).
(8)
Distribution of materials other
than bio-data of not more than one page of legal size sheet of paper (Sec.
14[a], IBP By-Laws).
On the convention floor on the day of the election, Atty. Paculdo caused to be distributed his bio-data and copies of
a leaflet entitled “My Quest,” as well as, the lists of his
slate. Attys. Drilon
and Nisce similarly distributed their tickets and
bio-data.
The campaign materials of Atty. Paculdo
cost from P15,000 to P20,000. They were printed by his own printing shop.
(9)
Causing distribution of such
statement to be
done by persons other than those authorized by the officer presiding at
the election (Sec. 14[b], IBP By-Laws).
Atty. Paculdo
employed uniformed girls to distribute his campaign materials on the convention
floor. Atty. Carpio
noted that there were more campaign materials distributed at the convention
site this year than in previous years.
The election was more heated and expensive (t.s.n.
July 6, 1989,
p. 39).
Atty. Benjamin Bernardino, the incumbent President of the
IBP Rizal Chapter, and a candidate
for chairman of the House of Delegates on Nisce’s
ticket, testified that campaign material where distributed during the convention by girls and by lawyers. He saw
members of the ACCRA law firm campaigning for Atty. Drilon (t.s.n. July 3, 1989, pp. 142-145).
(10)
Inducing or influencing a
member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or against a candidate (Sec. 14[e],
IBP By-Laws).
Atty. Bernardino
disclosed that his cousin, Atty. Romeo Capulong,
urged him to withdraw his candidacy for chairman of the House of Delegates and
to run as vice-chairman in Violy Drilon’s slate, but he declined (t.s.n.
July 3, 1989,
pp. 137, 149).
Atty. Gloria Agunos, personnel director of the Hyatt Terraces Hotel in Baguio and president of the Baguio-Benguet
IBP Chapter, recalled that in the third week of May 1989, after the Tripartite
meet of the Department of Labor & Employment at the Green Valley Country
Club in Baguio City, she met Atty. Drilon, together with two labor officers of Region 1;
attys. Filomeno Balbin and Atty. Mansala. Atty. Drilon solicited her (Atty. Agunos’) vote and invited her to stay at the Philippine
Plaza where a room would be available for her.
Atty. Paculdo also tried to enlist her support
during the chapter presidents’ meeting to choose their nominee for governor for the Northern
Luzon region (t.s.n. July 13, 1989, pp. 43-54).
Atty. Nisce testified that a Manila
Chapter 4 delegate, Marcial Magsino,
who had earlier committed his
vote to Nisce changed his mind when he was offered
a judgeship (This statement, however, is admittedly hearsay). When Nisce
confronted Magsino about the alleged offer, the
latter denied that there was such an offer.
Nisce’s informant was Antonio G. Nalapo, an IBP candidate who also withdrew.
Another Nisce candidate, Cesar Viola,
withdrew from the race and refused to be nominated (t.s.n.
June 29, 1989, p. 104).
Vicente P. Tordilla who was Niece’s
candidate for Governor became Paculdo’s candidate
instead (t.s.n. June 29, 1989, p. 104).
Nisce recalled that during the Bench
and Bar Dialogue in Cotabato
City, Court Administrator Tiro went around
saying, “I am not campaigning, but my wife is a
candidate.”
Nisce said that the presidents of
several IBP chapters informed him that labor officials were campaigning for
Mrs. Drilon (t.s.n. June 29, 1989, pp. 109-110). He mentioned Ciony
de la Cerna, who allegedly campaigned in La Union (t.s.n. June 29,
1989, p. 111).
Atty. Joel A. Llosa, Nisce’s supporter and candidate for governor of the Western
Visayas, expressed his disappointment
over the IBP elections because some delegates flip-flopped from one camp to
another. He testified that when he
arrived at the Manila Domestic
Airport he was met by an assistant
regional director of the DOLE who offered to bring him to the Philippine Plaza,
but he declined the offer. During the
legal aid seminar, Atty. Drilon invited him to
transfer to the Philippine Plaza where a room had been reserved for him. He declined the invitation (t.s.n. July 4, 1989,
pp. 102-106).
Atty. Llosa
said that while he was still in Dumaguete City, he already knew that the three candidates
had their headquarters in separate hotels:
Paculdo, at the Holiday Inn; Drilon, at the Philippine Plaza; and Nisce, at the Hyatt.
He knew about this because a week before the elections, representatives
of Atty. Drilon went to Dumaguete City
to campaign. He mentioned Atty. Rodil Montebon of the ACCRA Law
Office, accompanied by Atty. Julve, the Assistant
Regional Director of the Department of Labor in Dumaguete City. These two, he said, offered to give him two
PAL tickets and accommodations at the Philippine Plaza (t.s.n.
July 4, 1989, pp.
101-104). But he declined the offer
because he was already committee to
Atty. Nisce.
Atty. Liosa also revealed that before
he left for Manila on May 31, 1989, a businessman, Henry Dy, approached him to convince him to vote for Atty. Paculdo. But Llosa told Dy that he was already
committed to Nisce.
He did not receive any plane tickets from Atty. Niece because he
and his two companions (Atty. Eltanal and Atty. Ruperto) had earlier bought their own tickets for Manila
(t.s.n. July
4, 1989, p. 101).
SUMMARY OF CAMPAIGN EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE
CANDIDATES
Atty. Paculdo admitted having spent
some P250,000 during his three weeks of
campaigning. Of this amount, the Capitol
Bar Association (of which he was the chapter president) contributed about P150,000. The Capitol Bar
Association is a voluntary bar association composed of Quezon City lawyers.
He spent about P100,000 to defray the
expenses of his trips to the provinces (Bicol
provinces, Pampanga, Abra, Mountain
Province and Bulacan)
(t.s.n. June
29, 1989, pp. 9-14).
Atty. Nisce’s
hotel bills at the Hyatt amounted to P216,127.74. This does not include the expenses for his
campaign which began several months before the June 3rd election, and his
purchases of airplane tickets for some delegates.
The records of the Philippine Plaza Hotel, headquarters of Atty. Drilon’s camp, showed that her campaign rang up over P600,000 in hotel bills.
Atty. Callanta paid P316,411.53
for the rooms, food, and beverage
consumed by Atty. Drilon’s supporters, but still left
an unpaid bill of P302,197.30 at convention’s end.
FINDINGS. –
From all the foregoing, it is evident that the manner in which
the principal candidates for the national positions in the Integrated Bar
conducted their campaign preparatory to the elections on June 3, 1989, violated
Section 14 of the IBP By-Laws and made a travesty of the idea of a
“strictly non-political” Integrated Bar enshrined in Section 4 of the
By-Laws.
The setting up of campaign headquarters by the three principal
candidates (Drilon, Nisce
and Paculdo) in five-star hotels: The Philippine Plaza, the Holiday Inn and The
Hyatt — the better for them to corral and entertain the delegates billeted therein; the island-hopping to solicit
the votes of the chapter presidents who comprise the 120-member House of
Delegates that elects the national officers and regional governors; the
formation of tickets, slates, or line-ups of candidates for the other elective
positions aligned with, or supporting,
either Drilon, Paculdo or Nisce; the procurement of written commitments and the
distribution of nomination forms to be filled up by the delegates; the reservation of rooms for delegates in three big
hotels, at the expense of the presidential candidates; the use of a PNB plane by Drilon
and some members of her ticket to enable them to “assess their chances” among the chapter
presidents in the Bicol provinces; the
printing and distribution of tickets and bio-data of the candidates which in
the case of Paculdo admittedly cost him some P15,000
to P20,000; the employment of uniformed girls (by Paculdo)
and lawyers (by Drilon) to distribute their campaign
materials on the convention floor on the day of the election; the giving of
assistance by the Undersecretary of Labor to Mrs. Drilon
and her group; the use of labor
arbiters to meet delegates at the airport and escort them to the Philippine
Plaza Hotel; the giving of pre-paid plane tickets and hotel accommodations to
delegates (and some families who accompanied them) in exchange for their
support; the pirating of some candidates by inducing them to “hop” or
“flip-flop” from one ticket to another for some rumored
consideration; all these practices made a political circus of the proceedings
and tainted the whole election process.
The candidates and many
of the participants in that election not only violated the By-Laws of
the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all
lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution
and the laws, the duty to “promote
respect for law and legal processes” and to abstain from “activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system” (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility). Respect for law is gravely eroded when
lawyers themselves, who are supposed to be minions of the law, engage in unlawful practices and
cavalierly brush aside the very rules that the IBP formulated for their
observance.
The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the
presidency of the association detracted from the dignity of the legal
profession. The spectacle of lawyers
bribing or being bribed to vote one way or another, certainly did not uphold
the honor of the profession nor elevate it in the public’s esteem.
The Court notes with grave concern what appear to be the
evasions, denials and outright prevarications that tainted the statements of
the witnesses, including some of the candidates, during the initial hearing
conducted by it before its fact-finding committee was created. The subsequent investigation conducted by
this Committee has revealed that those parties had been less than candid with
the Court and seem to have conspired among themselves
to deceive it or at least withhold vital information from it to conceal the
irregularities committed during the campaign.
CONCLUSIONS. –
It has been mentioned with no little insistence that the
provision in the 1987 Constitution (Sec. 8, Art. VIII) providing for a Judicial
and Bar Council composed of sevens (7) members among whom is “a
representative of the Integrated Bar,” tasked to participate in the
selection of nominees for appointment to vacant positions in the judiciary, may
be the reason why the position of IBP president has attracted so much interest
among the lawyers. The much coveted
“power” erroneously perceived to be inherent in that office might have caused the corruption
of the IBP elections. To impress upon
the participants in that electoral exercise the seriousness of the misconduct
which attended it and the stern disapproval with which it is viewed by this
Court, and to restore the non-political character of the IBP and reduce, if not
entirely eliminate, expensive electioneering for the top positions in the
organization which, as the recently concluded elections revealed, spawned
unethical practices which seriously diminished the stature of the IBP as an
association of the practitioners of a noble and honored profession, the Court
hereby ORDERS:
1.
The IBP elections held on June 3, 1989 should be as they are
hereby annulled.
2.
The provisions of the IBP By-Laws
for the direct election by the House of Delegates (approved by this Court in
its resolution of July 9, 1985
in Bar Matter No. 287) of the following national officers:
(a) the
officers of the House of Delegates;
(b)
the IBP president; and
(c)
the
executive vice-president.
be repealed, this
Court being empowered to amend, modify or repeal the By-laws of the IBP under Section
77, Art. XI of said By-Laws.
3.
The former system of having the IBP President
and Executive Vice-President elected by the Board of Governors (composed of the
governors of the nine [9] IBP regions) from among themselves (as provided in
Sec. 47, Art. VII, Original IBP By-Laws) should be
restored. The right of automatic
succession by the Executive Vice-President to the presidency upon the
expiration of their two-year term (which was abolished by this Court’s
resolution dated July 9, 1985
in Bar Matter No. 287) should be as it is hereby restored.
4.
At the end of the President’s two-year term,
the Executive Vice-President shall automatically succeed to the office of
president. The incoming board of
governors shall then elect an Executive Vice-President from among
themselves. The position of Executive
Vice-President shall be rotated among the nine (9) IBP regions. One who has served as president may not run
for election as Executive Vice-President in a succeeding election until after
the rotation of the presidency among the nine (9) regions shall have been
completed; whereupon, the rotation shall begin anew.
5.
Section 47 of Article VII is
hereby amended to read as follows:
“Section 47. National Officers. – The Integrated Bar of the Philippines
shall have a President and Executive Vice?President to be chosen by the
Board of Governors from among nine (9) regional governors, as much as
practicable, on a rotation basis. The
governors shall be ex oficio
Vice-President for their respective regions.
There shall also be a Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of Governors
to be appointed by the President with the consent of the Board.”
6.
Section 33(b), Art. V, IBP
By-laws, is hereby amended as follows:
“(b) The
President and Executive Vice President of the IBP shall be the Chairman and
Vice-Chairman, respectively, of the House of Delegates. The Secretary, Treasurer, and
Sergeant-at-Arms shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the
House of Delegates.”
7.
Section 33(g) of Article V
providing for the positions of Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary-Treasurer and
Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Delegates is hereby repealed.
8.
Section 37, Article VI is hereby amended to read
as follows:
“Section 37. Composition of the Board. – The Integrated Bar of the Philippines
shall be governed by a Board of Governors consisting of nine (9) Governors from the nine (9)
regions as delineated in Section 3 of the Integration Rule, on the
representation basis of one (1) Governor for each region to be elected by the
members of the House of Delegates from that region only. The
position of Governor should be rotated among the different Chapters in the
region.”
9.
Section 39, Article V is hereby
amended as follows:
“Section 39. Nomination and election of
the Governors. –
At least one (1) month before the national convention the delegates from each
region shall elect the governor for their region, the choice of which shall as
much as possible be rotated among the chapters in the region.”
10.
Section 33(a), Article V hereby is amended by adding the following
provision as part of the first paragraph:
“No convention of the House of Delegates nor
of the general membership shall be held prior to any election in an election year.”
11.
Section 39, (a), (b), (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of Article
VI should be as they are hereby deleted.
All other provisions of
the By-laws including its amendment by the Resolution en banc
of this Court of July 9,
1985 (Bar Matter No.
287) that are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified.
12. Special
elections for the Board of Governors shall be held in the nine (9) IBP regions
within three (3) months after the promulgation of the Court’s resolution in
this case. Within thirty (30) days
thereafter, the Board of Governors shall meet at the IBP Central Office in Manila
to elect from among themselves the IBP national president and executive
vice-president. In these special
elections, the candidates in the election of the national officers held on June
3, 1989, particularly identified in Sub-Head 3 of this Resolution entitled
“Formation of Tickets and Single Slates,” as well as those identified
in this Resolution as connected with any of the irregularities attendant upon
that election, are ineligible and may not present themselves as candidate for
any position.
13. Pending such special elections, a caretaker
board shall be appointed by the Court to administer the affairs of the IBP.
The Court makes clear that the dispositions here made are without
prejudice to its adoption in due time of such further and other measures as are
warranted in the premises.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera,
Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento,
Cortes, Griño-Aquino, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.
Fernan, C.J., and Medialdea, JJ.,
no part.
Gutierrez, Jr., J., on leave.