CONSTITUTIONAL 1 (EH306)

BONGCAYO
GACIS
SAMONTE

In Re: UNDATED LETTER OF MR. LOUIS C. BIRAOGO, PETITIONER IN BIRAOGO V.

NOGRALES AND LIMKAICHONG G.R NO. 179120

A confidential internal document of the En Banc or the Gilbert copy was leaked while
the promulgation was still on hold and went to the possession of Biraogo - who was
the petitioner of the Biraogo v. Nograles and Limkaichong case. The Investigating
Committee created an investigation to determine who were responsible for the
unauthorized release of the unpromulgated ponencia of Justice Reyes with 18
resource persons including the Justice Reyes himself. Pending on the evaluation of the
investigation, Justice Reyes’s new copy of the Gilbert copy matched the xerox copy
which in Biraogo’s possession. The page 1 of the Gilbert copy which was forwarded to
the OCJ but now in hands of the committee where the leaked copy which in Biraogo’s
possession matched with Justice Reyes’s new copy. The committee finds that the
leakage came from the office of Justice Reyes and the justice himself was the one
who leaked the confidential information. Due to disregard of a duty resulting from
carelessness and indifference both Atty. Evangelista who is the Justice Reyes’s Judicial
Staff Head and Armando del Rosario are administratively liable for simple neglect of
duty with corresponding penalty of 10,000 and 5,000 pesos respectively. Justice Reyes
was held liable for Grave Misconduct for leaking a confidential internal document of
the court with a fine of 500,000 pesos to be charged against his retirement benefits
and also liable for Gross Misconduct for violating his oath as a member of the Bar and
the Code of Professional Responsibility with a penalty of indefinite suspension as a
member of the bar.

The actual controversy pertains to Justice Reyes’ seeking for compassion for the
lifting of his suspension to practice law. In accord with his letters, he seeks for
judicial clemency and the sound discretion of the court wanting to lift the
disqualification to hold office. The constitutional question raised by the proper party
is the motion to set aside the court’s decision regarding the indefinite suspension to
practice law and hold government office as the ruling and penalties imposed are
violative of his rights. The case has already been ruled upon by the Supreme Court.
The investigation has been conducted by a committee and it submitted its findings to
the Supreme Court.