You are on page 1of 86

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A

In the matter of the Allegations contained in the column of Mr. A.P. Macasaet Published in Malaya dated September 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2007

A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC

For: Indirect Contempt (Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). X---------------------------------------------------------------X

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,

Complainant,

- versus - A.M. NO. ___________________

For: Indirect Contempt - Section 3 (c) & (d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), and Gross Misconduct, etc.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago,

(Rm. 521-A 5th Flr., GSIS Bldg., Financial Center, Roxas Blvd. , Pasay City)

Respondent. X----------------------------------------------------------------------X

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno,

Senior Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing,

and the MEMBERS, En Banc, SUPREME COURT,

Padre Faura, Manila, and

Chairperson, Retired Associate Justice Carolina-Grino Aquino,

Retired Associate Justice Vicente V. Mendoza,

Retired Associate Justice Romeo Callejo, Sr.,

SUPREME COURT, Padre Faura, Manila

Verified Motion / Letter-Affidavit of Merit

[To Reconsider the Denial / Dismissal Resolution

(dated 16 October, 2007) for Non-payment of Docket / Legal Fees]

- with -

Urgent Prayer

For LEAVE OF COURT, To Allow Payment of Docket / Legal Fees (Duly Reserved), To Intervene in this Case, For Consolidation with A.C. No. 7663 (En Banc, Disbarment Case, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. vs. Senator Miriam DefensorSantiago) and For Immediate Docketing / Resolution

Your Honors,

Undersigned complainant / intervenor Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., most respectfully moves to reconsider the dismissal / denial Resolution dated 16 October, 2007 (for non-payment of docket / legal fees), WHICH HE PERSONALLY RECEIVED ON NOVEMBER 8, 2007, and further, he petitions to be allowed to pay the required docket and legal fees (duly reserved), to intervene in this case, to present evidence, to be heard, to consolidate the related disbarment case A.C. No. 7663, and under oath, he most respectfully depose and say, that:

GROUNDS:

1. Complainant was duly informed per television, internet breaking news and video reports, thusly:

S.C. PIO, Atty. Midas Marquez (September 26, 2007), stated:

There are no hard and fast rules in the Supreme Court on

how to handle such allegations, according to Marquez. There's no SOP really because cases like this aren't really very common, Marquez said. The court welcomes complaints, even anonymous complaints. We try to conduct investigations whenever we receive complaints, but we would really appreciate if these complaints would state in particular detail some of the allegations so that we could begin the investigation at some point. He lamented that such allegations could be bandied about in the media and tarnish the high court's reputation. "And then it would be picked up by the media. It's bringing the entire Supreme Court down. (By Leila Salaverria, Tetch Torres, Inquirer, INQUIRER.net, 10:41 pm, 09/24/2007).

2. Complainant forthwith (about the last week of September and first week of October, 2007) called the Offices of the PIO, Clerk of Court, and OCAD, inter alia, to inquire regarding a) where to file or what offices would receive his contempt pleading, and b) how much legal / docket fees he should pay. Since he never got any correct information on the matter, he again called Atty. Winston Banel, but complainant again failed to get the answers to his questions on said procedure and fees. Complainant therefore called Atty. Midas Marquez, but complainant miserably failed to contact this officer.

3. While complainant was preparing his initiatory pleading in an internet caf, he accidentally met a classmate of Atty. Midas Marquez. The following critical facts were duly NOTED by undersigned lest they be lost in his memory (storage), to wit:

The Ateneo alumni and Midas (from Pampanga, as she said) were classmates at Loyola Heights and they resided at the Eliazo and Cervini Halls; she studied Interdisciplinary Studies; .

4. On October 5, 2007, complainant personally approached Atty. Winston Banel of the OCC, since he was the only one thereat who could answer the filing questions; then, complainant asked him where he should file and pay but Banel said he had no idea ergo, complainant also went to the OCAD and an officer told him to go to the Documentation Division; complainant asked Mang Odi, the veteran employee thereat who handles all administrative cases or dockets; he stated that he had no idea about these matters, but he would accept the pleading, and Mang Bito would report the same to the Court; finally, complainant went to the ground floor filing office of all criminal and civil old and new cases; complainant personally went inside the room instead of just filing the 20 copies outside; but Sally and the other personnel thereat stated that they never and do not accept A.M.s since they only accept G.R.s, meaning, therefore, that complainants case is Administrative Matter and there is no docket fee required for that even if it is

indirect contempt.

5. Complainant again went to Atty. Winston Bannel, OCC, and told him that the former wanted to talk to Atty. Felipa Anama or Atty. Ma. Luisa Villarama, but both were not available at that time. Along the corridors complainant accidentally met Atty. Midas Marquez who was talking to a woman. So, complainant approached Midas, and showed him more than 20 copies of the pleading plus the ORIGINAL. Complainant asked Midas, regarding where would file the pleading versus Senator Santiago and where to pay. Midas was in a great hurry and told complainant to file it anywhere, since he said, it is up to the Court to decide. Complainant then showed Atty. Marquez page 1 thereof, which the former read to the latter:

S.C. PIO, Atty. Midas Marquez (September 26, 2007), stated:

There are no hard and fast rules in the Supreme Court on how to handle such allegations, according to Marquez. There's no SOP really because cases like this aren't really very common, Marquez said. The court welcomes

complaints, even anonymous complaints. We try to conduct investigations whenever we receive complaints, but we would really appreciate if these complaints would state in particular detail some of the allegations so that we could begin the investigation at some point. He lamented that such allegations could be bandied about in the media and tarnish the high court's reputation. "And then it would be picked up by the media. It's bringing the entire Supreme Court down. (By Leila Salaverria, Tetch Torres, Inquirer, INQUIRER.net, 10:41 pm, 09/24/2007).

6. Complainant therefore asked Midas for help in filing the same, since the 3 offices of the OCC, OCAD and ground floor filing did not know about the procedure and the fees, since the instant case is an ADMINTRATIVE MATTER and there was no precedent in their 3 offices. But Midas insisted that it may be filed anywhere. Complainant told him that the OCC and the ground floor filing would not accept it, but the OCAD would, but would not accept any payment for fees. So, the last word of Atty. Midas was go ahead file it and let the Court decide. So, complainant had no option but to file it with the OCAD Documentation Division and Mang Odi and Mang Bito promised to report the same to the Court.

7. When the October 16, 2006 first Resolution was released, Atty. Winston Banel informed complainant that the particular

resolution was still to be signed and the latter had to wait. So, on November 5, 2007, complainant personally went to the OCC, to get a copy thereof but Atty. Banel said that it was not yet released. So, complainant again called Atty. Banel on November 6 and the latter read through the phone the denial due to non-payment of docket fees. So, complainant again asked Banel regarding where to pay and how much docket and legal fees should be paid, considering that the only office which receives payment (ground floor receiving) refused to assess fees much less to receive the pleading and repeatedly informed complainant that there is no docket fee required for A.M. or administrative matter or administrative case.

8. With all these, it is not complainants fault that he failed to pay the docket fees. This is the first time in judicial history that an indirect contempt is being filed against a Senator and in an Administrative Matter. Complainant based his case and pleas upon the very statements and representations of Atty. Midas Marquez, who is the spokesman of the Court, PIO chief and p.s. of the Chief Justice.

9. Finally, complainant reproduces herein as integral part

hereof all the allegations and contents of his filed October 5, 2007 pleading in this case to prove that if this and such initiatory pleading are given due course and granted, he could, beyond reasonable doubt show that respondent Miriam Santiago is guilty of indirect contempt of Court, gross misconduct and utter destruction of the Temples of Justice. Specifically, her lust for power (to become Chief Justice by 2010) goes beyond the legal, moral and the boundaries of fairness and justice. She, in no uncertain terms, wanted to destroy the persona of S.C. Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, and for this, she must not escape unpunished lest she further annihilate the entire judicial department by her EVIL touch.

RELIEF

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the instant -

Verified Motion / Letter-Affidavit of Merit

[To Reconsider the Denial / Dismissal Resolution

(dated 16 October, 2007) for Non-payment of Docket / Legal Fees]

- with -

Urgent Prayer

For LEAVE OF COURT, To Allow Payment of Docket / Legal Fees (Duly Reserved), To Intervene in this Case, For Consolidation with A.C. No. 7663 (En Banc, Disbarment Case, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. vs. Senator Miriam DefensorSantiago) and For Immediate Docketing / Resolution

- against respondent Senator Miriam Santiago, be duly Noted, given Due Course and Granted.

Further, it is respectfully petitioned that after filing of respondents COMMENT / ANSWER, after due notice, and hearing, judgment be rendered declaring her GUILTY of indirect contempt of Court and gross misconduct, inter alia, and punished accordingly under Rule 71, inter alia, of the Rules of Court.

Special Prayer:

Further, petitioner most respectfully petitions this Court

1) To set this case for Oral Argument, in order that Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, as lawyer and officer of the Court may properly defend herself in the right FORUM, and be disciplined accordingly, and

2) After all the proceedings, to PUNISH her with the same penalties that this Court imposed upon Raul M. Gonzales, because, the facts of that case and this case are interestingly similar if not duplicate in character:

Court itself as an institution that has been falsely attacked, libel suits cannot be an adequate remedy. The Court concludes that respondent Gonzalez is guilty both of contempt of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Raul M. Gonzalez from the practice of law indefinitely and until further orders from this Court, the suspension to take effect immediately.

(EN BANC - October 7, 1988, G.R. No. 79690-707 - G.R. No. 80578 - February 1, 1989 - ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ, claiming to be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution, respondents. G.R. No. 80578 February 1, 1989)

Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letteraffidavit-complaint, this 8th day of November, 2007, at Malolos City, BULACAN.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,

Complainant,

123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, 3000 BULACAN,

Tel/#(044) 662-82-03;

[I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300; ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV - PTR No. 503411, dated 1-11-07, Malolos, Bulacan.

NOTICE & REQUEST

TO: Atty. Ma. Luisa D. Villarama,

Clerk of Court, En Banc, SUPREME COURT, MANILA

c/o Atty. FELIPA ANAMA & Atty. LANI PAPA,

Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court, immediately upon receipt hereof.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,

Complainant

VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING & AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S.

I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, depose/say, that: I am the complainant in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read the initial complaint duly filed in this case, and all the contents/allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

I certify that: I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of our knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein, EXCEPT the filed A.C. No. 7663 - Disbarment Case Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. vs. Senator Miriam DefensorSantiago, October 5, 2007, and if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof will be made, but there is none; if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

I CERTIFY that on November 8, 2007, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this case: In the matter of the Allegations contained in the column of Mr. A.P. Macaset Published in Malaya dated September 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2007 - A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,

Complainant, - versus - Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, upon respondents Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Mr. Amado Macasaet, and upon Ms. Daisy Cecilia Munoz Delis, via registered mail with return card at their offices / addresses as hereunder indicated, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court, by depositing said copies at the Malolos Post Office, as evidenced by reg. receipt hereto attached, hereunder, PAGE 8, and indicated after the name of the addressee, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mails to the sender after 10 days if undelivered; and I served by personal service copies of this pleading to Public Information Office, and all the members of the Commission thru the Office of the Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila, by depositing copies thereof at their said offices / Clerk of Court, Supreme Court Manila, as proved by the rubber stamp receipts after their names hereunder, in accordance with the said Rules.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 8th day of November, 2007, hereat Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007.

DOC. NO. ____, PAGE NO. ___, BERNAR D. FAJARDO

BOOK NO. ____, SERIES OF 2007. Notary Public,

Until Jan.31, 2008,

PTR NO. 2417109, 1- 3,07,

Atty.s Roll No. 33633,

IBP OR # 688744, 1-5,07

Malolos, Bulacan. COPY FURNISHED:

Names of Addressees Addresses Registry Receipt No.

Office of the Court Administrator, (Personal Service)

OCAD, Supreme Court, Manila ,

Public Information Office, (Personal Service)

Supreme Court, Manila

The Committee, (Personal Service)

c/o The Office of the Clerk of Court,

Supreme Court, Manila

Retired Associate Justice Carolina-Grino Aquino, (Personal

Service)

No. 59-G Tuazon St., Quezon City,

c/o The Office of the Clerk of Court,

Supreme Court, Manila

Retired Associate Service)

Justice

Vicente

Mendoza,

(Personal

No.3, Aster St., Fairview, Quezon City

c/o The Office of the Clerk of Court,

Supreme Court, Manila

Retired Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., (Personal Service)

No. 9 Ruego St., BF Homes,

Commonwealth, Quezon City

c/o The Office of the Clerk of Court,

Supreme Court, Manila

By registered mail with receipt and return card. Explanation: Due to lack of time and messenger and impracticality, I served copies of this complaint and annexes to respondent by registered mail with attached receipt, hereunder.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago,

Respondent,

Rm. 521-A 5th Flr., GSIS Bldg.,

Financial Center, Roxas Blvd. ,

Pasay City.

Mr. Amado Macasaet,

Respondent, Publisher, Malaya,

371 A., Bonifacio Drive, Port Area,

Manila

(Atty. Rogelio Velarde represented him,

at the hearing dated October 30, 2007)

Ms. Daisy Cecilia Munoz Delis,

125-B, F. Roman St.,

Brgy. Balong Bato, San Juan City

(Atty. Ricardo Pamintuan

represented her at the hearing)

Glenda M. Gloria,

Newsbreak managing editor

appeared before the panel on behalf of Marites Vitug.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A

In Re: In the matter of the allegations appearing in the column Business Circuit, of Amado Macasaet in the September 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2007 issues of Malaya

A.M. NO. A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC For: Indirect Contempt (Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). X--------------------------------------------------------------------X

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant,

- versus - A.M. NO. _________

For: Indirect Contempt - Section 3 (c) & (d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure), and Gross Misconduct, etc.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, (Rm. 521-A 5th Flr., GSIS Bldg., Financial Center, Roxas Blvd., Pasay City) Respondent. X--------------------------------------------------------------------X

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Senior Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, and the MEMBERS, En Banc, SUPREME COURT, Padre Faura, Manila

Verified Petition / Letter-Affidavit [For Indirect Contempt of Court and Gross Misconduct, inter alia] - with Urgent Motions To Allow Payment of Docket Fees (Duly Reserved), To Intervene in this Case, For Consolidation and For Immediate Docketing / Resolution

==================================== ==================================== ========

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Office of the Bar Confidant SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant,

- versus - A.C. NO. _______ For: Disbarment (Rules 138, 139-B, Rules of Court) and Gross Misconduct.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, (Rm. 521-A 5th Flr., GSIS Bldg., Financial Center, Roxas Blvd., Pasay City) Respondent.

X------------------------------------------------------------------X

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Senior Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, and the MEMBERS, En Banc, SUPREME COURT, Padre Faura, Manila

VERIFIED DISBARMENT COMPLAINT / LETTER-AFFIDAVIT [Under Rules 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, inter alia]

With - Motions for PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution

==================================== ==================================== ========

Your Honors,

Undersigned complainant / intervenor Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., most respectfully moves for - being allowed to pay docket and legal fees (duly reserved), for intervention, for consolidation, for early resolution, and under oath, most respectfully depose and say, that:

S.C. PIO, Atty. Midas Marquez (September 26, 2007), stated:

There are no hard and fast rules in the Supreme Court on how to handle such allegations, according to Marquez. There's no SOP really because cases like this aren't really very common, Marquez said. The court welcomes complaints, even anonymous complaints. We try to conduct investigations whenever we receive complaints, but we would really appreciate if these complaints would state in particular detail some of the allegations so that we could begin the investigation at some point. He lamented that such allegations could be bandied about in the media and tarnish the high court's reputation. "And then it would be picked up by the media. It's bringing the entire Supreme Court down. (By Leila Salaverria, Tetch Torres, Inquirer, INQUIRER.net, 10:41 pm, 09/24/2007).

CRITICAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS Bill of Particulars: Articles of Indirect Contempt of Court

Article I Print Media http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article .php?article_id=90689 ***

*** = this is the Internet URL or address / location of the news, which when pasted to the upper part of the computer, the Internet will open the report.

SC justice behind smear campaign vs Santiago -- senator Breaking News / Nation - by Veronica Uy - INQUIRER.net, 10:36pm - 09/25/2007

MANILA, Philippines -- Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago on Tuesday accused another Supreme Court justice of orchestrating the smear campaign against Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago. The feisty Senator said Justice Santiago was being implicated in a payoff scandal possibly to force her to inhibit herself from a multi-billion peso land case that is pending in the high court. The court met en banc Tuesday to investigate media reports that insinuated Justice Santiago received a gift-wrapped box containing P10 million and linked the incident to the hotly-contested Maysilo-Araneta University land case in Quezon City. Justice Santiago earlier penned a decision affirming a Court of Appeals ruling awarding ownership of the contested 34-hectare prime property to the heirs of a certain Homer Barque over other powerful claimants. The case was later reopened. Both sides are represented by big law firms.

In a press conference, Senator Santiago said she suspects that another Supreme Court justice could be behind the orchestrated media plot to bring Justice Santiago into disgrace, and compel her to inhibit herself from writing the decision. I suggest that the Supreme Court investigate as well another Supreme Court justice who used to have connections in one of the law firms involved in this case. I do not say that the Justice devised the plot to destroy Justice Santiago but certainly he is involved in it. Hindi nila

masuhulan kaya sisirain nila (They cannot bribe her, thats why they try to destroy her instead). That justice should be investigated. If I get more facts Ill name him outright, and Ill have the Senate investigate more on the fiasco, she said. (With Gil Cabacungan Jr. and Leila B. Salaverria, Philippine Daily Inquirer).

SC asks publisher to explain allegation against justice

By Leila Salaverria, Inquirer, 07:34pm (Mla time) 09/26/2007 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article .php?article_id=90892

Asked about the allegations of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago that another Supreme Court justice was behind the attacks against Santiago, Marquez said she may have to clarify her statement if there is a need for her to do so. "As of now we don't know exactly what the good senator is referring at. If she is sure, maybe an affidavit will help," he said.

SC to Jake Macasaet: Explain write-up vs magistrate http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx? StoryId=94030

Lawyer Jose Midas Marquez, SC spokesman, said Macasaet

needs to shed light on his claim against Santiago because the accusations have degraded the high court. Sen. Miriam Santiago's statement Tuesday that the issue was brought about by an internal rift among magistrates. He said he does not know where Santiago got her information.

Justices hale publisher on bribery story

By Rey E. Requejo, Manila Standard Today, September 26, 2007 http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/? page=news1_sept26_2007

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, in a statement, said she was not related to the justice, but defended her as being impeccably honest. She said the attacks came from another Supreme Court justice who used to belong to a big law firm, and could be aimed at getting her off the Quezon City land case.

Article II Broadcast Media

Senator Miriam Santiago, in a press conference, and outside the Senate Session Hall, specifically along the corridors, stated on Television the foregoing accusations and circumstances against a specific, incumbent Supreme Court Justice:

Video GMA News, Channel 7

SC's Ynares-Santiago denies taking P10-M bribe 09/25/2007 | 07:27 PM

http://www.gmanews.tv/video/12104/SC's-Ynares-Santiagodenies-taking-P10-M-bribe

Article III 2 Pending Cases Affected / Involved

SC to investigate bribery allegations vs one of its justices

by Leila Salaverria, Tetch Torres, INQUIRER.net, 09/24/2007 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article .php?article_id=90447

In the decision penned by Justice4 Santiago released last September 4, the high court ordered the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case against Go because he could be charged for violation of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft Law Section 3 (g) because such provision only applies to public officers.

Section 3 (g) of the Anti-Graft Law punishes "public officers who, on behalf of the government, enter into contracts or transactions manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby." Go, and co-accused former transportation secretary Vicente Rivera Jr. were charged by the Office of the Ombudsman for allegedly conspiracy in connection with the mothballed NAIA terminal.

Justice Santiago earlier penned a decision affirming a Court of Appeals ruling awarding ownership of the contested 34hectare prime property to the heirs of a certain Homer Barque over other powerful claimants. The case was later reopened. Both sides are represented by big law firms.

Supreme Court Justice Suspected of Accepting Payoff

By Marites Daguilan Vitug and Aries Rufo -Tuesday, 25 September 2007 http://www.newsbreak.com.ph/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=3741&Itemid=8888900 5 Two Cases: Piatco and QC Land Dispute

At the time of the alleged payoff, there were two controversial cases pending before the Supreme Court of which Ynares-Santiago penned the decisions. One is the Piatco case, wherein Ynares-Santiago, this month, ordered the dismissal of the graft case against the former chair and

president of the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc (Piatco), in connection with the voided contract to build the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3reversing an earlier Supreme Court decision (click here for our list of stories on NAIA-3). The High Court directed the Sandiganbayan to withdraw the criminal case versus Henry Go, saying that he was charged under the wrong provision of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. In that decision, Ynares-Santiago reversed a decision written by Justice Romeo Callejo in April, who retired soon after. Then, Callejo won, with a 3-2 vote. This time, Ynares-Santiago got two justices on her side, Adolf Azcuna and Cancio Garcia, who concurred with her. The deliberations in the third division over the Piatco case were described as bitter. It was in March that Ynares-Santiago fired Delis, at the height of the exchanges on the case. "No concrete proof has been shown," Moises Tolentino, Piatco spokesman, told Newsbreak, referring to the alleged bribery. "We are the victims here. Piatco has been battered by countless allusions of wrongdoings."

The other case, which is still pending before the Supreme Court en banc, reportedly has to do with a dispute over an estimated P1.7-billion, 34-hectare prime property in Quezon City, near the Ayala Heights subdivision. Ynares Santiago wrote a decision in December 2005 in favor of the new claimants, heirs of Homer Barque, invalidating the title of the long-time settlers, the Manotoks.

SC threatens Malaya publisher with contempt over bribery report

THURSDAY |SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 | PHILIPPINES http://www.malaya.com.ph/sep27/news6.htm

Court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said the high court might also ask Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago to explain her statements to the media that another SC justice could be behind the smear campaign against Justice Santiago. "As of now, we dont know exactly what the good senator is referring to. If she is sure, maybe an affidavit will help. I suppose she will have to clarify that statement, the court will decide if theres a need. We dont know yet, were focusing on the columns of Mr. Macasaet," he said. Senator Santiago said Tuesday that the justice behind the smear campaign "used to belong to a law firm known to be interested" in the "lucrative Quezon city land dispute." She also said she would name the suspect justice when she gets more facts.

LEGAL BASIS AND PRECEDENT FOR DOCKETING THIS CASE A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA - March 27, 2001

IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS CHARGING COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DEMETRIO DEMETRIA WITH INTERFERENCE ON BEHALF OF A SUSPECTED DRUG QUEEN: COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA.

Such is this administrative charge triggered by newspaper accounts which appeared on the 21 July 2000 issues of The

Manila Standard, The Manila Times, Malaya, The Philippine Daily Inquirer and Today. The national dailies collectively reported that Court of Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria tried to intercede on behalf of suspected Chinese drug queen Yu Yuk Lai, alias Sze Yuk Lai, who went in and out of prison to play in a Manila casino. That same day, 21 July 2000, Chief Justice Davide, Jr., issued a Memorandum to Justice Demetria directing him to comment on the derogatory allegations in the news items.

1. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. In view of the IRREPARABLE damage and injury to the legal profession and to the last bulwark of democracy, this Honorable Court of Last Resort, must defend itself and all the Justices, against EVIL. For, if these continuing attacks by respondent Miriam DefensorSantiago (Senator Santiago, for brevity) are not stopped at the earliest opportunity, the judicial department would be helpless, all the Magistrates would be ridiculed, and like C. J. Panganiban, Senator Santiago would repeatedly SPIT upon, again and again upon the temple of justice.

Sec. 6. Permissive joinder of parties.

All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may, except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the

action; but the court may make such orders as may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection with any proceedings in which he may have no interest.

Sec. 8. Necessary party. A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action.

Sec. 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.

Neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a misjoined party may be severed and proceeded with separately.

Sec. 14. Unknown identity or name of defendant. Whenever the identity or name of a defendant is unknown, he may be sued as the unknown owner, heir, devisee, or by such other designation as the case may require; when his identity or true name is discovered, the pleading must be amended accordingly.

2. Complainant invokes the liberal interpretation of the Rules, especially jurisprudence on administrative cases which in no uncertain terms teaches that the instant administrative case is not governed by the ordinary rules of procedure. 3. Complaint invokes the TWIN DIRECTIVES / ORDERS of this Honorable Court to RAUL GONZALES and DEMETRIA DEMETRIA to file COMMENT on DEROGATORY ALLEGATIONS versus the Supreme Court / its Associate Justices, made by them, and PUBLISHED in the NEWSPAPER REPORTS.

The ACCUSATION/CHARGES With Legal Argument and Memorandum of Law / Authorities

With due respect

Undersigned complainant charges / accuses respondent Senator Santiago --- with ---

a. conduct unbecoming of a lawyer, gross ignorance of the law, indirect contempt of court, contempt of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar / legal profession, to wit: Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides that a person may be punished for indirect contempt for:

(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;

(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice; xxx (Vide: NICOLAS O. TAN vs. ATTY. AMADEO E. BALON, JR., August 31, 2007 A.C. No. 6483, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:EN BANC)

Respondent, with malice and bad faith, due to lust for power and personal interests, specifically to destroy all her opponents in the 2010 Chief Justice Race, let herself / her public office to commit SIN, and / or allowed the prestige of her position and of the legal profession to be jeopardized;

b. professional indiscretion, violation of oath of office and her duty as attorney or counselor-at-law, which include the statutory grounds enumerated under Sec. 27 of Rule 138, Rules of Court (Arrieta vs. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248), including grossly unethical behavior, malice and bad faith in the press conferences, inter alia,

c. grave VIOLATIONS of ---

i. Sec. 20 (a), Rule 138, Rules of Court, including the Canons, to wit: Respondent, like all other members of the bar, failed to live up to the standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly the following Canons, viz:

CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. CANON 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in

the legal system.

CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (Promulgated June 21, 1988)

CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.

CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL. Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.

Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.

Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.

CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT. Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in

the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY - CHAN ROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY http://www.chanrobles.com/codeofprofessionalresponsibility. html

in that she miserably failed to be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence; (due to her ardent desire to be promoted, for power, lust for glory); she did not behave to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; she conveyed to the public, an impression that she was so powerful / in a special position to influence others; she failed to follow the strict mandates of Rules 138, Rules of Court, and the Bill of Rights, RULE OF LAW, and due process;

R.A. 6713, Code of Ethical Standards for Government Officials --- the ethics and professionalism required of her by its circulars; Revised Administrative Code of 1987 as amended, on her oppression, bad faith/malice; The Civil Service Law, rules and regulations, including the constitutional mandate that public office is a public trust, public officers shall serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, efficiency, xxx. (Businos vs. Ricafort, 283 SCRA 407).

These violations/acts and omissions of respondent definitely

show her to be wanting in moral character and probity/good demeanor or unworthy to continue as officer of the Court, or unfit or unsafe person to enjoy the privileges of attorneys or for conducts which tend to bring reproach on the legal profession and to the High Tribunal, or to injure it in the favorable opinion of the public. She clearly demonstrated attitudes and courses of conduct wholly inconsistent with the approved professional standards, of having failed to live up to her duties as lawyer in consonance with the strictures of the lawyers oath, the cited Canons and Codes, thereby having occasioned unwarranted sufferings, humiliations and hardships on Magistrates. She was propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions, coupled with greed and lust for power or promotion, having failed in conscientiously seeing to it that justice permeates every aspect of her duties and profession, in conformity with the avowed duties of worthy members and officers of the Bar and the Bench.

Locus Standi

1. Complainant is a Filipino Citizen, a taxpayer, and a registered voter of 123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, Bulacan, his home and postal address, where he may be served with court processes, orders and judgments.

2. As a citizen, taxpayer and registered voter, undersigned has LOCUS STANDI or legal standing to file this case, is an interested / real party-in-interest and has direct, special and extra-ordinary interest in the subject matters of this landmark case.

NATURE, SPECIAL PURPOSE AND TRANSCENDENTAL VALUE OF THE COMPLAINT; GENERAL, SPECIAL AND DIRECT INTERESTS OF PETITIONER IN THIS CASE; IRREPARABLE INJURY TO THE NATION / COMPLAINANT/ JUDICIARY

The matter is a delicate one, quite obviously, and must thus be dealt with utmost circumspection, to avoid any FURTHER ridicule, attacks and humiliation not only of Magistrates but the Supreme Court itself. The issues posed by the petition / complaint transcend the persons of complainant, Justice Santiago and the specific Supreme Court Justice from the law firm that respondent accused HELPLESSLY in the media. These issues affect some of our most deeply held values in democracy --- the protection of civil and judicial rights, the tarnishing and perhaps total destruction of the judicial department/our temples of justice. The petition and complaint at bar concern all these values. It is the people on the line. It is we.

3. RIGHT TO INFORMATION: As a citizen, taxpayer and registered voter, complainant has a constitutional right to information on all matters of public concern, not the least of which is the ORCHESTRATED attack of respondent Santiago upon the 3 or 5 nominees would-be in the 2010 Chief Justice Race.

EARLY RESOLUTION DEMANDED BY PUBLIC GOOD

4. Until this petition/complaint is finally resolved, the entire legal profession, the judiciary and the litigants, inter alia, remain in the dark.

This 22nd PUNO-QUISUMBING COURT must perforce leave us a 2009-2010 LEGACY OF AND IRON HAND AGAINST merciless lawyers and powerful public servants, to save not only the High Tribunal, but to protect and defend a Supreme Court Justice who is now rendered HELPLESS.

COPIES OF THE NEWS REPORTS ABOVE-QUOTED ARE ATTACHED AS INTEGRAL PART HEREOF, COLLECTIVELY MARKED AS ANNEX A.

Article IV Respondents Apology to Chinese Embassy and FFCCCII

Senator apologizes for saying China invented corruption (3:39 p.m.)

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2007/09/27/senator.ap ologizes.for.saying.china.invented.corruption. (3.39.p.m.).html

MANILA -- A senator apologized Thursday for saying China

"invented corruption" during a heated hearing into an allegedly overpriced broadband deal Manila signed with a Chinese company.

"I will write a formal letter of apology to the Chinese ambassador," Senator Miriam Santiago, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters. Santiago, famous for her mercurial temper, publicly berated China in a nationally televised hearing Wednesday into a US$330 million (euro235 million) broadband network contract that was awarded to China's Zhong Xing Telecommunication Equipment (ZTE) Corp. amid allegations of bribery and overpricing.

"China invented civilization in the East, but as well it invented corruption for all of human civilization," Santiago said Wednesday.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008655510

Mentally and Physically Sick: Chronic fatigue syndrome and Anorexia

Santiago officially apologizes to Chinese embassy

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article

.php?article_id=91246 By Veronica Uy - INQUIRER.net - Last updated 11:56am 09/28/2007

MANILA, Philippines -- Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago has officially sent a letter of apology to the Chinese embassy, saying she suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome, which might explain her remarks alleging that the Chinese invented corruption. These are not excuses, but perhaps they explain why I was not as diplomatic as I should have been, Santiago said in her letter addressed to Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Song Tao. The letter, dated September 27, started and ended with an apology.

This is to respectfully apologize for whatever offense may have been caused by my remarks at the Senate hearing yesterday [September 26] on the proposed RP-China loan agreementI humbly apologize to you, the Peoples Republic of China, and the Chinese people. No offense was intended and I hope none will be taken, she said.

Chinese embassy, Filipino-Chinese group slam Santiago slur

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view_arti cle.php?article_id=91094

By Veronica Uy, INQUIRER.net, Last updated 05:08 pm 09/27/2007

MANILA, Philippines -- The Chinese embassy in Manila and the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry Inc. (FFCCCII) on Thursday protested Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiagos anti-Chinese remarks during Wednesdays Senate hearing on the controversial national broadband network (NBN) deal.

The protests came even as Santiago, earlier in the day, said she would apologize to the Chinese embassy for the comment she made Wednesday when, as the Senate continued its probe on the allegedly shady contract bagged by state-owned Chinese firm ZTE Corp. on Wednesday, she blurted out that the Chinese had invented corruption.

Such kind of comments [are] neither fair nor correct, the Chinese embassy protested. We believe that the Philippine government and the people of the Philippines will not agree to that. It is known to all that anti-corruption is a common task faced by all the countries of the world. Corruption exists not only in China, nor was it created by China, the embassy said. The Chinese government has all along devoted itself to the building of an honest and clean government and combat against all forms of corruption, it added. In recent years, the Chinese government has adopted even tougher measures in combat against corruption and achieved prominent results. [We] think people of insight can all see it.

On the other hand, the FFCCCII demanded an apology in behalf of ethnic Chinese, not just in the country but also

around the world. While her [Santiagos] outburst may have been made in the heat of emotion during the ZTE-NBN probe, the general and sweeping racial slur is directed against all Chinese and ethnic Chinese around the world, the FFCCCII said in a statement. In the interest of fair play, we at the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry -- in behalf of all fellow ChineseFilipinos -- demand an immediate and unqualified apology from Senator Santiago, it added. The FFCCCII said it was taken aback by the irresponsible and insensitive statements of Santiago against the Chinese.

It said the alleged irregularities in the isolated NBN-ZTE transaction cannot be the basis of the unwarranted and regrettable condemnation by the senator. This unfortunate utterance is all the more deplorable since Senator Santiago is not only a senator of the republic, but more so, is chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, the group said. The federation has more than 50,000 members in 170 chapters around the country.

Article V Senator Santiago Spit upon the face of C.J. Panganiban

Article VI Senator Santiago vowed vengeance on JBC, Supreme Court

Santiago also attacked the members of the bar council as

earthworms Article VII Senator Santiago called S.C. Justices idiots.

Hurt, furious Miriam vows vengeance on JBC, SC

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/dec/05/yehey/top_ stories/20061205top4.html

Tuesday, December 05, 2006, By Jomar Canlas, Reporter

Voted out of the shortlist of nominees for the post of chief justice, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago vowed get back at the Supreme Court and the Judicial Bar Council (JBC) by slashing their budgets. I am foaming in the mouth, I am hitting the roof.

Panganiban blamed

JBC sources told The Manila Times that Senior Associate Justice Reynato Puno and Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing as topnotchers with seven votes each. Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Angelina SandovalGutierrez got five votes each.

The JBC also shut out Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who

penned the scathing Court decision that junked the peoples initiative bid of administration allies.

A furious Santiago accused Panganiban of orchestrating her defeat. She said Panganiban punished her for being a close ally of President Arroyo.

But she did not offer any proof except to cite the chief justices closeness to former senator Jovito Salonga, a critic of the administration.

Santiago then promised to push for a reduction of the Supreme Courts budget to 2005 levels and that of the JBC to just P100. JBC member Sen. Francis Pangilinan said the noninclusion of Santiago sent a message. I think the judiciary is not yet open in accepting an outsider, Pangilinan said. Gonzalez, another JBC member, tried to appease the senator, saying some members fought for her nomination. The process of arriving at a shortlist was marred by controversy over the public interviews after the Supreme Court justices snubbed the JBCs call for public interviews.

Miriam is spurned, hits idiots in tribunal

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/? page=news2_dec5_2006 By Roy Pelovello and Rey E. Requejo

SENATOR Miriam Defensor Santiago yesterday accused Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban of plotting with other Supreme Court justices to keep her off the list of nominees for his position when he retires Dec. 7.

Im foaming at the mouth. Im hitting the roof. Im homicidal. Im suicidal. Im ballistic. I spit in the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, she said in a privilege speech after learning that the Judicial and Bar Council left her off the short list of nominees. I am not interested in becoming chief justice if I am going to be surrounded by idiots, she said. Santiago tore into Panganiban, who sits as chairman of the council, accusing him of spearheading the campaign to blacklist her for being a court outsider. There was a plot to disqualify me from the soon-to-bevacated post of chief justice on the suspicion that since I am perceived to be an intimate political ally of the President, once nominated, I would be appointed... Mr. Panganiban was the mastermind of this thinly veiled plot to disqualify me. He and his cohorts want to uphold [the tradition] that no outsider should be appointed chief justice.

Santiago also attacked the members of the bar council as earthworms for going along with Panganiban in protecting a tradition that was nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

I prefer the company of my colleagues in the Philippine Senate anytime, anywhere, any day, to the company of those idiots in the Supreme Court, she said. They are idiots not only in the intellectual but also in the moral sense [because they are] so devoid of any sense of moral propriety

that they are perfectly capable of voting for self-interest over the rights protected by the Constitution in favor of other people.

Santiago described her disqualification as hypocrisy, naked, and promised to examine the Supreme Courts funds more closely and to recommend a reduction in its budget.

If you want a boxing match, Ill oblige. If you want a debate at Plaza Miranda, thats fine with me too, she said.

Senate Majority Leader Francis Pangilinan said Carpio was left out because he didnt get enough votes while Santiago was dropped because she was an outsider.

Miriam hits back, seeks JBC abolition

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/? page=politics02_dec06_2005

At the risk of being accused of sour-graping, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago yesterday called for the abolition of the Judicial and Bar Council by amending the Constitution, and slashing its budget next year to the minimum.

Santiago made the proposal after the JBC refused to extend the period of nomination for the chief justice, but gave the candidates for ombudsman a wider leeway. Santiago, a former regional trial court judge, said that technically, the JBC cannot be abolished because it is created by the Constitution, but Congress can give a warning by slashing its budget.

Yes, I myself have a personal interest, because I was nominated for chief justice. My nomination was excluded because the JBC refused to extend the period of nomination, Santiago said. But I am acting in good faith, and not out of personal vengeance.

Prior to all these controversies, I already told Senator Francis Pangilinan, a JBC member, that I will not be interested in the post of chief justice until my term expires in 2010.

(Hon. Reynato S. Puno Chief Justice , December 7, 2006 May 17, 1940 Retirement - May 17, 2010 -Gloria MacapagalArroyo)

Santiago also raised suspicions that the JBC could have unwittingly excluded qualified candidates by calling for nominations on Nov. 4, and imposing a deadline of Nov. 10, thus, depriving the public to be informed and to prepare nominations. Under the present system, it is possible for a Supreme Court justice to support his personal protegs for appointment to the JBC, and in turn for those protegs to

vote for him as chief justice when a vacancy occurs. That would be very unhealthy for the judicial system.

Santiago also assailed the decision of the JBC not to subject to public interviews the three nominees Associate Justices Reynato Puno, Artemio Panganiban and Leonardo Quisumbing to the post of chief justice, contrary to the JBCs own rules. Rey E. Requejo

Senator Santiagos Opponents in May 18, 2010, Midnight:

Hon. Antonio T. Carpio - Associate Justice - October 26, 2001 - October 26, 1949 - October 26, 2019 - Gloria MacapagalArroyo

Hon. Renato C. Corona - Associate Justice - April 9, 2002 October 15, 1948 October 15, 2018 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

Hon. Conchita Carpio-Morales - Associate Justice - September 3, 2002 June 19, 1941 - June 19, 2011 - Gloria MacapagalArroyo

Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. - Associate Justice - March 31, 2006 - August 8, 1948 - August 8, 2018 - Gloria MacapagalArroyo

Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura - Associate Justice -

January 22, 2007 June 13, 1941 - June 13, 2011 - Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[Hon. Reynato S. Puno Chief Justice December 7, 2006 May 17, 1940 May 17, 2010 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo]

[Hon. Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez Associate Justice April 12, 2002 December 19, 1940 - December 19, 2010 - Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo]

Article VI Senator Santiagos Agenda: At all cost, Viral Attack upon the Integrity, persona and candidacy of ANTONIO T. CARPIO She knows her formidable opponent

I respectfully SUBMIT my evidence to prove that respondent Santiagos MEDIA attacks upon the Supreme Court Justice of a BIG LAW FIRM, do have no other purpose but to oust her bitter rival, at the earliest opportunity, having TASTED her most painful TWIN defeats over the Highest Judicial Post, in 2005 and 2006.

I borrow from her Senate biography, news and mainly from MULTI-awarded WikiPedia Encyclopedia, the worlds largest ONLINE encyclopedia:

Assassination Attempt

Miriam was suddenly victimized in a car crash that remains unsolved up to the present. On the highway during a speaking tour, Miriam suffered life-threatening injuries, after a car rammed her vehicle on the side where she was seated. Bloodied and unconscious, she was airlifted by helicopter from Tarlac to Metro Manila and taken to the Metropolitan Hospital.

Her staff decided not to reveal the true extent of Miriam's injuries, so as not to prejudice her presidential chances. But she was completely immobile and could not walk nor even move her arms. Her facial injuries made it impossible for her to talk, and she had to communicate by writing. She underwent surgery, during which she had a near-death experience.

Personal Tragedy Mental and Physical Health Deterioration

Miriam's husband Narciso Y. Santiago Jr. from Tarlac, nicknamed "Jun," serves as presidential adviser on revenue enhancement. Under President Estrada, Jun served as undersecretary of local government. The couple has two birth children, Narciso III and Alexander Robert.

Miriam lost her younger son in November 2003. He was only

22 years old and was on the Dean's List at the Ateneo University. In the years that followed her personal tragedy, Miriam's irreparable grief manifested itself as a health failure, including a minor stroke (thankfully without lingering effects), hypertension, pinched nerves, high cholesterol, and most recently, unexplained anorexia (an eating disorder) which caused her to lose weight.

(Biography) http://www.senate.gov.ph/senators/sen_bio/santiago_bio.asp ---------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miriam_Defensor_Santiago

Talk:Miriam Defensor Santiago Son's suicide

Perhaps we can add details on the son's suicide death. Miriam said something about UP Law Professors and classmates teasing her son about her being crazy or unhinged. This supposedly drove her son to suicide. She tried to sue UP but you can ask any UP law student and it's standard practice to tuant, tease, initmidate etc. any law student. It's suppose to prepare them for future law practice. Responsiblebum 06:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer: The above statement an understatement because "tease and intimidate" should be replaced by "insulted". It is not common to "insult people and definitely not common to insult even members of your family" in an interview. And yes, I already asked a UP law student in U.P. Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.159.4 (talk contribs) 06:09, November 17, 2006 (UTC)

Well I must check with UP on this whether insult is off limits. From what I know it isn't. Still it is worth mentioning the circumstances of the son's suicide. Responsiblebum 08:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You can start by making a thorough investigation a) checking police records/interviews from witnesses b) ask the family themselves including Miriam c) conduct interviews from former classmates and professors. Do not rely on Miriam statements alone as she might be angry at the time her son committed suicide i.e. her allegations might be unfounded. Then edit this page and cite your sources. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.36.169.226 (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Defensor_Santiago

Miriam Defensor Santiago From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

78% Bar RATING, Teacher of Trinity College, Quezon City, 4 years

She earned a Bachelor of Laws, from the University of the Philippines Diliman in 1969. Her classmates include former Senate President Franklin Drilon, San Juan Representative Ronaldo Zamora, and Eli Pamatong. Miriam took the 1969 Bar Exams and received a 78% average grade, to her great dismay.[3] [4] Her classmates Zamora and Drilon were first and third respectively, getting high grades, eventually landing in top law firms. In stark contrast, Santiago ended up teaching Political Science to undergraduates at Trinity College of Quezon City.[3]

To bolster her credentials and do over her dismal performance in the bar exam, Santiago resorted to higher learning. She attended the University of Michigan Law School from 1974 to 1976, earning degrees in Master of Laws and Doctor of Juridical Science.[3] (Sources: # "Presidential Profiles: Miriam Defensor Santiago." Probe Team Documentaries. GMA-7. MarchApril 1998. # ^ Official Records of the Supreme Court Bar Examinations Committee, Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court of the Philippines, 1969).

Santiago again ran for president in the 1998 elections and invited fellow Senator Francisco Tatad to be her running

mate. Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino candidate Joseph Estrada won the election and became president, though Santiago again made claims of election fraud. After the election, Santiago returned to the senate.

When she lost in the Senate race of 2001, she worked on updating her law and political science textbooks, which were last released 2002.[6]Official Publications List, Central Book Store, 2002.

A traditional corrupt politician, carrying high levels of arrogance, greed for power, and opportunism

However, a considerable number of lawyers, academicians, political analysts, journalists, and activists measure her as a traditional corrupt politician, carrying high levels of arrogance, greed for power, and opportunism. She is often quoted as having described less educated Filipinos as "species of lower life forms"

On January 13, 2001, Santiago and ten other senators voted against the opening of a bank envelope. The vote ended the impeachment trial and led to the Second People Power Revolution which removed Estrada from office.

Senator Santiago announced publicly that "I will jump headfirst from a helicopter in Luneta if Estrada gets removed from power" but later recanted and said "I lied".[11]

Santiago ran for reelection in the 2001 elections following the Estrada's removal, but was not re-elected. It was at this point in her career that tragedy struck her personal life. Her favorite son, AR, an aspiring law student, failed an exam and took his life. His last missive bewailed the peer pressure he suffered as the son of a notoriously corrupt politician.[12] In retaliation, Miriam vowed to retire permanently from politics and devote her time to the persecution of the law school professors whom she held responsible for her son's suicide. [13]

In the 2004 elections, Santiago reneged on her vow and ran again for senator, this time switching to the President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's K4 coalition and won. She currently holds the position of chairperson and lone member of the People's Reform Party. Her office in West Triangle, Quezon City offers a library of her written books.

Santiago announced her intentions to apply as one of the possible candidates to fill the post of Supreme Court Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban upon his retirement in December 2006. Ultimately, the Judicial and Bar Council removed Santiago from the shortlist of candidates for the position.[14] Santiago openly criticized the move, questioning the qualifications of Panganiban and labelling the Supreme Court an "old boy's club" for not admitting outsiders into their fold. [15] The shortlisting came after all the nominees, save for Santiago, boycotted a public interview held by the Judicial Bar Council that aimed to improve the institution's transparency.[16]

On July 10, 2007, Santiago said that an acquittal of ousted President Estrada will consequently cast doubts on the legitimacy of President Arroyos assumption into office. She advised that only a conviction will be to the best interest of Mrs. Arroyo: If President Estrada is acquitted now, we will have a dilemma: What then is the status of President Arroyo? Two, if he is acquitted, the conclusion can only be that there was no plunder and therefore there was no basis to remove him from office. What then is the basis of President Arroyo in the elections (in 2004) that followed after she was installed (in 2001)? That in itself will create another legal dilemma,.[17] Further, Santiago accused some winning senators of having paid their way to office (P200 million is the non-negotiable minimum amount to carry out a senatorial electoral campaign which is simply unethical).

Health - Chronic fatigue syndrome and anorexia

On September 28, 2007, Miriam Defensor-Santiago stated that she is sick of chronic fatigue syndrome. [25] (CFS) is highly debilitating disorder marked by chronic mental and physical exhaustion, often severe, and by other specific symptoms, arising in previously healthy and active persons. [26] She also suffered from Anorexia (symptom), the decreased sensation of appetite (disorders that cause (harmful) anorexia include anorexia nervosa, severe depression, cancer, dementia, AIDS, and chronic renal failure and the use of certain drugs, particularly stimulants and narcotics. Environmentally induced disorders such as

altitude sickness can also trigger an acute form of anorexia. Anorexia may also be seen in congestive heart failure, perhaps due to congestion of the liver with venous blood). Jurisprudence

I begin by referring to the authority of the Supreme Court to discipline officers of the court and members of the Bar. The Supreme Court, as regulator and guardian of the legal profession, has plenary disciplinary authority over attorneys. The authority to discipline lawyers stems from the Court's constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law, which includes as well authority to regulate the practice itself of law. Quite apart from this constitutional mandate, the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court over members of the Bar is an inherent power incidental to the proper administration of justice and essential to an orderly discharge of judicial functions. Moreover, the Supreme Court has inherent power to punish for contempt, to control in the furtherance of justice the conduct of ministerial officers of the Court including lawyers and all other persons connected in any manner with a case before the Court. The power to punish for contempt is "necessary for its own protection against an improper interference with the due administration of justice," "(it) is not dependent upon the complaint of any of the parties litigant.

It has been held that contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court, such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the courts order but such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of

law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice. (Abad v. Somera, G.R. No. 82216, July 2, 1990, 187 SCRA 75, 84-85.)

Contempt in facie curiae / 4 years Suspension of RAUL GONZALEZ

On 9 February 1988, petitioner Zaldivar filed with the Court a Motion to Cite in Contempt 11 directed at respondent Gonzalez. The Motion cited as bases the acts of respondent Gonzalez in: (1) having caused the filing of the information against petitioner in Criminal Case No. 12570 before the Sandiganbayan; and (2) issuing certain allegedly contemptuous statements to the media in relation to the proceedings in G.R. No. 80578. In respect of the latter, petitioner annexed to his Motion a photocopy of a news article, reproduced here in toto, which appeared in the 30 November 1987 issue of the "Philippine Daily Globe:"

Tanod Scores SC for Quashing Graft Case

TANODBAYAN Justice Raul M. Gonzalez said yesterday the Supreme Court order stopping him from investigating graft cases involving Antique Gov. Enrique Zaldivar can aggravate the thought that affluent persons "can prevent the progress of a trial."

What I am afraid of (with the issuance of the order) is that it appears that while rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, it is difficult for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course. Gonzalez told the Daily Globe in an exclusive interview.

Gonzalez said the high tribunal's order "heightens the people's apprehension over the justice system in this country, especially because the people have been thinking that only the small fly can get it while big fishes go scotfree."

Gonzalez was reacting to an order issued by the tribunal last week after Zaldivar petitioned the court to stop the Tanodbayan from investigating graft cases filed against him. Zaldivar had charged that Gonzalez was biased in his investigations because the latter wanted to help promote the political fortunes of a friend from Antique, lawyer Bonifacio Alentajan. Acting on Zaldivar's petition, the high court stopped Gonzalez from investigating a graft charge against the governor, and from instituting any complaint with the Sandiganbayan. While President Aquino had been prodding me to prosecute graft cases even if they involve the high and mighty, the Supreme Court had been restraining me. Gonzalez said.

In accordance with the President's order, Gonzalez said he had filed graft cases against two "very powerful" officials of the Aquino government-Commissioner Quintin Doromal of the Presidential Commission on Good Government and

Secretary Jiamil I.M. Dianlan of the Office of Muslim Affairs and Cultural Communities. While I don't wish to discuss the merits of the Zaldivar petition before the Supreme Court, I am a little bit disturbed that (the order) can aggravate the thinking of some people that affluent persons can prevent the progress of a trial, he said.

He disclosed that he had a talk with the Chief Executive over the weekend and that while she symphatizes with local officials who are charged in court during election time, 'She said that it might be a disservice to the people and the voters who are entitled to know their candidates.

Gonzalez said that while some cases filed against local officials during election time could be mere harassment suits, the Constitution makes it a right of every citizen to be informed of the character of tile candidate, who should be subject to scrutiny. (Emphasis supplied) The power to punish for contempt of court does not exhaust the scope of disciplinary authority of the Court over lawyers. The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is but corollary to the Court's exclusive power of admission to the Bar. A lawyer is not merely a professional but also an officer of the court and as such, he is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing justice and resolving disputes in society. Any act on his part which visibly tends to obstruct, pervert, or impede and degrade the administration of justice constitutes both professional misconduct calling for the exercise of disciplinary action against him, and contumacious conduct warranting application of the contempt power.

It is sometimes asserted that in the exercise of the power to punish for contempt or of the disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar, the Court is acting as offended party, prosecutor and arbiter at one and the same time. Thus, in the present case, respondent Gonzalez first sought to get some members of the Court to inhibit themselves in the resolution of this case for alleged bias and prejudice against him. A little later, he in effect asked the whole Court to inhibit itself from passing upon the issues involved in this proceeding and to pass on responsibility for this matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, upon the ground that respondent cannot expect due process from this Court, that the Court has become incapable of judging him impartially and fairly. Respondent Gonzalez misconceives the nature of the proceeding at bar as well as the function of the members of the Court in such proceeding.

In Salcedo v. Hernandez, Atty. Vicente Francisco filed a Motion before the Supreme Court which contained the following paragraph (in translation):

We should like frankly and respectfully to make it of record that the resolution of this court, denying our motion for reconsideration, is absolutely erroneous and constitutes an outrage to the rights of the petitioner Felipe Salcedo and a mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls in the municipality of Tiaong, Tayabas. We wish to exhaust all the means within our power in order that this error may be corrected by the very court which has committed it, because we should not want that some citizen, particularly some voter of the municipality of Tiaong, Tayabas, resort to the

press publicly to denounce, as he has a right to do, the judicial outrage of which the herein petitioner has been the victim, and because it is our utmost desire to safeguard the prestige of this honorable court and of each and every member thereof in the eyes of the public. But, at the same time we wish to state sincerely that erroneous decisions like these, which the affected party and his thousands of voters will necessarily consider unjust, increase the proselytes of sakdalism and make the public lose confidence in the administration of justice. (61 Phil. at 726; emphasis supplied)

When required by the Court to show cause why he should not be declared in contempt, Atty. Francisco responded by saying that it was not contempt to tell the truth. Examining the statements made above, the Court held:

... [they] disclose, in the opinion of this court, an inexcusable disrespect of the authority of the court and an intentional contempt of its dignity, because the court is thereby charged with no less than having proceeded in utter disregard of the laws, the rights of the parties, and of the untoward consequences, or with having abused its power and mocked and flouted the rights of Attorney Vicente J. Francisco's client, because the acts of outraging and mocking from which the words 'outrage' and mockery' used therein are derived, means exactly the same as all these, according to the Dictionary of the Spanish Language published by the Spanish Academy (Dictionary of the Spanish Language, 15th ed., pages 132-513).

The insertion of the phrases in question in said motion of

Attorney Vicente J. Francisco, for many years a member of the Philippine bar, was neither justified nor in the least necessary, because in order to call the attention of the court in a special way to the essential points relied upon in his argument and to emphasize the force thereof, the many reasons stated in his said motion were sufficient and the phrases in question were superfluous. In order to appeal to reason and justice, it is highly improper and amiss to make trouble and resort to threats, as Attorney Vicente J. Francisco has done, because both means are annoying and good practice can ever sanction them by reason of their natural tendency to disturb and hinder the free exercise of a serene and impartial judgment, particularly in judicial matters, in the consideration of questions submitted for resolution.

There is no question that said paragraph of Attorney Vicente J. Francisco's motion contains a more or less veiled threat to the court because it is insinuated therein, after the author shows the course which the voters of Tiaong should follow in case he fails in his attempt, that they will resort to the press for the purpose of denouncing, what he claims to be a judicial outrage of which his client has been the victim; and because he states in a threatening manner with the intention of predisposing the mind of the reader against the court, thus creating an atmosphere of prejudices against it in order to make it odious in the public eye, that decisions of the nature of that referred to in his motion to promote distrust in the administration of justice and increase the proselytes of sakdalism a movement with seditious and revolutionary tendencies the activities of which, as is of public knowledge, occurred in this country a few days ago. This cannot mean otherwise than contempt of the dignity of the court and disrespect of the authority thereof on the part of Attorney

Vicente J. Francisco, because he presumes that the court is so devoid of the sense of justice that, if he did not resort to intimidation, it would maintain its error notwithstanding the fact that it may be proven, with good reasons, that it has acted erroneously.

As a member of the bar and an officer of this court, Attorney Vicente J. Francisco, as any attorney, is in duty bound to uphold its dignity and authority and to defend its integrity, not only because it had conferred upon him the high privilege, not a right (Malcolm, Legal Ethics, 158 and 160), of being what he now is: a priest of justice (In re Thatcher, 80 Ohio St., Rep., 492, 669), but also because in so doing, he neither creates nor promotes distrust in the administration of justice, and prevents anybody from harboring and encouraging discontent which, in many cases, is the source of disorder, thus undermining the foundation upon which rests that bulwark called judicial power to which those who are aggrieved turn for protection and relief (61 Phil. at 727728; emphasis supplied)

It should not be supposed that the six (6) cases above discussed exhaust our case law on this matter. In the following cases, among others, the Supreme Court punished for contempt or administratively disciplined lawyers who had made statements not very different from those made in the cases discussed above:

1) In re Wenceslao Laureta, 148 SCRA 382 (1987);

2) Borromeo v. Court of appeals, 87 SCRA 67 (1978);

3) Rheem of the Philippines v. Ferrer, 20 SCRA 441 (1967);

4) Malolos v. Reyes, 1 SCRA 559 (1961);

5) De Joya, et al. v. Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City Branch, 99 Phil. 907 (1956);

6) People v. Venturanza, et al., 98 Phil. 211 (1956);

7) In re Suzano A. Velasquez, per curiam Resolution (unreported), Promulgated 29 April 1955;

8) Cornejo v. Tan, 85 Phil. 772 (1950);

9) People v. Carillon, 77 Phil. 572 (1946);

10) Intestate Estate of Rosario 0lba; Contempt Proceedings against Antonio Franco, 67 Phil. 312 (1939); and

11) Lualhati v. Albert, 57 Phil. 86 (1932).

But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it

shall be bonafide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.

The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly administration of justice. Hence, in the assertion of their clients' rights, lawyers even those gifted with superior intellect are enjoined to rein up their tempers. Only slightly (if at all) less important is the public interest in the capacity of the Court effectively to prevent and control professional misconduct on the part of lawyers who are, first and foremost, indispensable participants in the task of rendering justice to every man. Some courts have held, persuasively it appears to us, that a lawyer's right of free expression may have to be more limited than that of a layman.

It is well to recall that respondent Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, is also a Special Prosecutor who owes duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to this Court as the embodiment and the repository of the judicial power in the government of the Republic. The responsibility of the respondent "to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court' and "not to promote distrust in the administration of justice is heavier than that of a private practicing lawyer.

Respondent Gonzalez claims to be and he is, of course, entitled to criticize the rulings of this Court, to point out where he feels the Court may have lapsed into error. Once more, however, the right of criticism is not unlimited. Its limits were marked out by Mr. Justice Castro in In re Almacen which are worth noting.

Court itself as an institution that has been falsely attacked, libel suits cannot be an adequate remedy. The Court concludes that respondent Gonzalez is guilty both of contempt of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Raul M. Gonzalez from the practice of law indefinitely and until further orders from this Court, the suspension to take effect immediately.

Fernan C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

(EN BANC - October 7, 1988, G.R. No. 79690-707 - G.R. No. 80578 - February 1, 1989 - ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ, claiming to be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution, respondents. G.R. No. 80578 February 1, 1989)

Complainant is not unaware of the possible SHIELD that respondent would utilize to bar this Court and Justice Carpio from disciplining her.

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION PHILIPPINES

OF

THE

REPUBLIC

OF

THE

ARTICLE VI - THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.

LET IT BE REMEMBERED that SC PIO / spokesman Atty. Midas Marquez stated that

SC threatens Malaya publisher with contempt over bribery report

THURSDAY |SEPTEMBER 27, 2007 | PHILIPPINES http://www.malaya.com.ph/sep27/news6.htm

Court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said the high court might also ask Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago to explain her statements to the media that another SC justice could be behind the smear campaign against Justice Santiago.

78% vs. 87.55%, 89.1% Bar Ratings Idiots.

I researched very hard to GATHER not only HARD EVIDENCED to discipline respondent (such as tracing in the INTERNET, her statements that clearly violated Rule 139-B, Disbarment and Contempt), but I borrowed TIME to study her LIFE, her MENTAL and Physical Fitness, inter alia.

This is my PER CURIAM finding: (Per curiam, means, I do not want to divulge, who whispered this legal hermeneutics to my pen).

Respondent is so smart, yet, due to her poor bar rating of 78% (vis--vis ::::: Velasco, Jr. = 89% Judge Floro = 87.55% Carpio = 87.50% - Miriam Santiago = 78%

of course she outwitted ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, with 77%)

and for sure, with moderate to lower I.Q., she would issue statements before the press and outside the Halls of the Senate, committing LEGAL COMEDY of errors.

For example: she asked that Justice Carpio (the Justice she alluded to) must be investigated by the Court. And she promised, once, she does have evidence. That is legal nonsense. The Constitution provided exclusive original jurisdiction to discipline S.C. Justices in the Impeachment Senate Tribunal or Court. She should file an impeachment complaint against THE Justice in the House of Representative, or rather, JOINTLY with NO TAKERS perennial NUISSANCE Senatorial candidate and annual Impeachment FILER, Atty. Oliver Lozano (who is the favorite headliner of the tabloid THE DAILY TRIBUNE). Respondent must comprehend that the Supreme Court is not barred from suspending her or from imposing the death penalty of DISBARMENT upon her HEAD. She will for sure CREATE another GULO on or before May 17, 2010. As she warned Senator Pangilinan (the one who did not vote for her in the JBC). Sec. 11 will never ever be a shield.

A final word.

Na headline na ba si Miriam Santiago sa lahat ng frontpages ng New York Times, WALL STREET JOURNAL, MSN, REUTERS, MSNBC, BBC NEWS, CNN name them all. This is material to this case, since she never got attention from the international PRESS, just from local media. PERIOD, your Honors. I submit my case.

[Image especially created by an International Forums - re Judge Floro]

High profile UK, international ace journalist, JAMES HOOKWAY, interviewed me for 2 days (from China), and he wrote my story: a Jobless Judge in a Pretend World. I intersperse the WALL STREET JOURNAL FRONT PAGE article TO PROVE that I am not an IDIOT, the Justices are not Idiots and the JBC are not earthworms. (September 17, 2007; Page A1)

RELIEF

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the instant Verified Petition / Letter-Affidavit [For Indirect Contempt of Court and Gross Misconduct, inter alia] - with Urgent Motions To Allow Payment of Docket Fees (Duly Reserved), To Intervene in this Case, For Consolidation and For Immediate Docketing / Resolution against respondent Senator Miriam Santiago, be duly Noted, given Due Course and Granted.

Further, it is respectfully petitioned that after filing of respondents COMMENT / ANSWER, after due notice, hearing, judgment be rendered declaring her GUILTY of indirect contempt of Court and gross misconduct, inter alia, and

punished accordingly under Rule 71, inter alia, of the Rules of Court. Special Prayer:

Further, petitioner most respectfully petitions this Court 1) To set this case for Oral Argument, in order that Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, as Lawyer and officer of the Court may properly defend herself in the right FORUM, and to be disciplined accordingly, 2) And after all the proceedings, to PUNISH her with the same penalties that this Court imposed upon Raul M. Gonzales, because, the facts of that case and this case are interestingly similar if not duplicate in character:

Court itself as an institution that has been falsely attacked, libel suits cannot be an adequate remedy. The Court concludes that respondent Gonzalez is guilty both of contempt of court in facie curiae and of gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND Atty. Raul M. Gonzalez from the practice of law indefinitely and until further orders from this Court, the suspension to take effect immediately.

(EN BANC - October 7, 1988, G.R. No. 79690-707 - G.R. No. 80578 - February 1, 1989 - ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR, petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ, claiming to be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution, respondents. G.R. No. 80578 February 1, 1989)

Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letteraffidavit-complaint, this 5th day of October, 2007, at Malolos City, BULACAN.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Complainant, 123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, 3000 BULACAN, Tel/#(044) 662-82-03; [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300; ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV - PTR No. 503411, dated 1-11-07, Malolos, Bulacan.

NOTICE & REQUEST

TO: Atty. Ma. Luisa D. Villarama, Clerk of Court, En Banc, SUPREME COURT, MANILA c/o Atty. FELIPA ANAMA & Atty. LANI PAPA,

Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court, immediately upon receipt hereof.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Complainant

VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING & AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S.

I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, depose/say, that:

I am the complainant in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read the initial complaint duly filed in this case, and all the contents/allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

I certify that: I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of our

knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein, EXCEPT the filed A.C. No. _____ Disbarment Case Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. vs. Senator Miriam DefensorSantiago, October 5, 2007, and if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof will be made, but there is none; if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

I CERTIFY that on October 4, 2007, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this case In Re: In the matter of the column Business Circuit, of Amado Macasaet in the September 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2007 issues of Malaya A.M. NO. A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus - Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, upon respondent Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, via registered mail with return card at her office / address as hereunder indicated, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court, by depositing said copies at the Malolos Post Office, as evidenced by reg. receipt hereto attached, hereunder, and indicated after the name of the addressee, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mails to the sender after 10 days if undelivered.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 5th day of October, 2007, hereat Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at

Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007.

DOC. NO. 324, PAGE NO. 66, BERNAR D. FAJARDO BOOK NO. 75, SERIES OF 2007. Notary Public, Until Jan.31, 2008, PTR NO. 2417109, 1- 3,07, Atty.s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 688744, 1-5,07 Malolos, Bulacan.

COPY FURNISHED:

Office of the Court Administrator, (Personal Service) OCAD, Supreme Court, Manila,

By registered mail with receipt and return card.

Explanation: Due to lack of time and messenger and impracticality, I served copies of this complaint and annexes to respondent by registered mail with attached receipt, hereunder.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago,

Respondent, Rm. 521-A 5th Flr., GSIS Bldg., Financial Center, Roxas Blvd., Pasay City.