ALAM files disbarment vs Brillantes, et al
ALAM files disbarment vs Brillantes, et al
In honor of the principle of the RULE OF LAW, so that all persons, officials or otherwise, will learn to obey what are the laws even if it hurts, Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM) is filing today or tomorrow a Complaint for Disbarment against the persons who are otherwise obligated to prevent any insult against the law.
ALAM is filing the Complaint for Disbarment against Commission on Election (Comelec) Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr., Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento, Commissioner Lucenito N. Tagle, Commissioner Armando C. Velasco, Commissioner Elias R. Yusoph, and Commissioner Christian Robert S. Lim.
The complaint is based on the defiance committed by the respondents against the Supreme Court, in violating the Status Quo Order issued by it for the Comelec officials to observe the status quo prevailing at the time before the Comelec denied the petition of ALAM for accreditation as a a partylist group with finality
If only the laws are observed faithfully, ALAM is sure to be included in the Official PCOS Ballot.
You may read the petition written below:
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme
Court
Manila
ALAB NG
MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM)
represented
by ATTY. BERTENI
CATALUÑA
CAUSING,
Complainant,
-versus-
BAR MATTER NO. ___________
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS (COMELEC)
CHAIRMAN
SIXTO S. BRILLANTES JR., RENE
V.
SARMIENTO, COMMISSIONER LUCENITO
N. TAGLE ,
COMMISSIONER ARMANDO C.
VELASCO, COMMISSIONER ELIAS R. YUSOPH,
and COMMISSIONER
CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM,
Respondents,
x--------------------------------------------------------------------x
Republic of
the Philippines )
City of
Manila )SC
Complaint for Disbarment
I, ATTY. BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, of legal age, whose postal address
is at Unit 1, No. 2368 Leon Guinto St. corner JB Roxas St., Malate, Manila,
under oath, do hereby depose and state:
1.
I
am executing this Complaint for Disbarment in compliance with the demand of the
Board of ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM),
a partylist applicant, to fulfill its resolution for the filing of the
Complaint for Disbarment against the Chairman of the Commission on Elections
and the Commissioners of the same Commission who are all lawyers;
2.
Thus,
this is being filed in representation of ALAM
NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM) and I, being a lawyer, has been designated to
prosecute the desire of the Board and authorized to file the necessary case and
all other actions that are implied and necessary for the fulfillment of this
desire;
3.
Rest
assured, however, that this is not personal to me and that I am only obligated
by my duty as the one being commanded to do necessary steps so that the desires
and the demand for justice of ALAB NG
MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM) will come to fruition;
4.
A
copy of the Board Resolution commanding me to file this case is attached hereto
as ANNEX “A”;
5.
ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM) filed on 30 March 2012 a petition
for accreditation as a partylist group for the 2013 Partylist Elections;
6.
After
due notice and hearing, the Second Division of the COMELEC issued a resolution promulgated
12 September denying the application of ALAM, which resolution was received by
ALAM on 20 September 2012;
7.
A
copy of the Resolution of the Second Division denying the application for
accreditation of ALAM is attached hereto as ANNEX “B”;
8.
Seasonably,
ALAM filed on 24 a motion for reconsideration and a supplemental motion for
reconsideration;
9.
The
hearing for the motion for reconsideration was held;
10.
As
required, ALAM filed its memorandum;
11.
The
COMELEC Second Division issued a
resolution promulgated 12 November 2012 denying the motion for reconsideration;
12.
A
copy of the En Banc Resolution where only Commissioners Yusoph and Lim favored
ALAM’s motion for reconsideration is attached hereto as ANNEX “C”;
13.
Aggrieved
by the decision of the Commission En Banc, ALAM filed before the Supreme Court a
Petition for Review and for Certiorari and Prohibition;
14.
A
copy of the main petition is attached hereto as ANNEX “D”;
15.
In
response thereto, the Supreme Court issued a resolution directing, among
others, for all parties to observe the Status Quo prevailing before the COMELEC
issued the 12 November 2012 Resolution denying
ALAM’s motion for reconsideration;
16.
A
copy of the same order is attached hereto as ANNEX “E”;
17.
The
respondents received a copy of the said Supreme Court order;
18.
Among
the most significant events that occurred before the 12 November 2012
Resolution that denied the motion for reconsideration of ALAM was Comelec
Resolution No. 9467 that was promulgated by the Comelec on 15 June 2012;
19.
A
copy of Comelec Resolution No. 9467 downloaded from the website of the Comelec,
found particularly on this site http://www.comelec.gov.ph/?r=Elections/2013natloc/res/res9467&bn=2013+National+and+Local+Elections+|+Resolutions&b=Elections%2F2013natloc%2Fres%2FresoTOC%26toc_search%3D9467%23ps2668
is attached hereto as ANNEX “F”;
20.
The
pertinent part of Comelec Resolution No. 9467 is Section 1, which reads:
SEC. 1 Requirement. – Only party-list groups/coalitions
accredited by or duly registered with the Commission and which have manifested
their desire to participate in the party-list election, may participate in the
raffle for purposes of determining their order of listing in the ballot. However, party-list groups/coalitions whose
petitions for accreditation have been denied by the Commission and have pending
petitions before the Supreme Court questioning the decision of the Commission
shall also be allowed to participate in the raffle.
21.
On
19 December 2012, the respondents as the Chairman and Commissioners passed Comelec
Resolution No. 9591 to amend Resolution No. 9467, and this Comelec Resolution
can be downloaded from this website, http://www.comelec.gov.ph/uploads/Elections/2013natloc/res/com_res_9591.pdf;
22.
A
copy of Comelec Resolution No. 9591 is attached hereto as ANNEX “G”;
23.
The
amendment effectively excluded ALAB NG MAMAMAHAYAG (ALAM) from getting allowed
to participate in the raffle for the placement in the official PCOS ballot;
24.
The
respondents through the Comelec website issued notices announcing the names of
the partylist groups allowed to take part in the raffle set for 4 January 2013,
in the afternoon;
25.
ALAM’s
representative and secretary general Edwin R. Alcala, assisted by Atty. Cirilo
P. Sabarre, Jr., attended the raffle and he was made to pick up or draw the number
and ALAM picked No. 34;
26.
While
the raffle was being conducted, Comelec Chairman Brillantes expressed his anger
that the partylist groups issued Status
Quo Orders but were denied earlier by the Comelec were able to pick up
their slot numbers;
27.
It
was a Friday when the raffle was held;
28.
On
the next Monday, 7 January 2013, the respondents passed Comelec Resolution No.
9604, excluding ALAM and 12 other partylist groups similarly situated or that
were also issued with a Status Quo
Orders;
29.
A
cop[y of Comelec Resolution No. 9604 is attached hereto as ANNEX “H” and can be downloaded from this Comelec site http://www.comelec.gov.ph/uploads/Elections/2013natloc/res/com_res_9604.pdf.;
30.
It
is therefore very obvious that despite their knowledge about the Status Quo Orders and the knowledge
about the existence of Comelec Resolution No. 9467 that they themselves made,
the respondents had malice or bad faith in issuing Comelec Resolution No. 9604
to exclude ALAM from the official PCOS Ballot;
31.
Also,
the acts of the respondents are contemptuous, the reason that ALAM filed a
motion for contempt before the Supreme Court;
32.
A
copy of the motion for contempt is attached hereto as ANNEX “I”;
33.
The
acts of the respondents are BLATANT VIOLATIONS of the Status Quo order issued by
the Court in a joint Resolution dated December 4, 2012 in a consolidated case
that included this petition docketed General Registry No. 204139;
34.
These
respondents as lawyers and officers of the court other than their being
duly-constituted authorities of the Comelec are not exempt from complying with
the Lawyer’s Oath, which reads:
I___________ of ___________ do solemnly swear that I will
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court; I will not wittingly nor
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid
nor consent to the same; I will delay
no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients;
and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
35.
In
blatantly disobeying the Supreme Court’s Status Quo Order, the respondents violated
this part of the Lawyer’s Oath: “I
will support its Constitution and obey laws as well as the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities therein…”;
36.
In
blatantly disobeying the Supreme Court’s Status Quo Order, the respondents also
violated this part of the Lawyer’s Oath: “I
will delay no man for money or malice …”;
37.
The
violation was blatant and offensive to the conscience of justice blatantly
disobeying the Supreme Court’s Status Quo Order, the respondents also violated
this part of the Lawyer’s Oath: “I
will delay no man for money or malice …”;
38.
The
respondents are supposed to be acting as epitomes of all other lawyers for
being regarded as esteemed by reason of their appointment to the office that
they occupy;
39.
In
committing errors of judgments in every official acts that the respondents did,
they are protected;
40.
But
in committing errors that even an elementary lawyer knows not to be committed, it
is either the respondents committed GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW or DELIBERATE
VIOLATION OF THE LAW;
41.
Either
way they did, the penalty for them is DISBARMENT;
42.
They
have brought shame to the law profession by committing injustice despite their knowledge
that what they would commit was wrong and a disobedience to the Supreme Court;
43.
Additionally,
the respondents are charged with the knowledge that the COMELEC has been
sternly warned by the Supreme Court for not including in the PCOS ballot
partylist Philippine Guardian Brotherhood, Inc., yet they committed another disobedience
to the Supreme Court;
44.
This
case where the Comelec was first warned against repeating the same act is
entitled PGBI vs Comelec, G.R. No.
190529, March 22, 2011;
45.
The
dispositive portion of this promulgation by the Supreme Court reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Comelec Chair35 and
Members36 are hereby found GUILTY of CONTEMPT of the Supreme Court for their
disobedience to our lawful directive, specifically the Status Quo Order dated
February 2, 2010. They are accordingly SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for this
disobedience. They are further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
acts shall be dealt with more severely in the future.
The Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. shall be deemed
not to have transgressed the participation and level of votes requirements
under Section 6(8) of Republic Act No. 7941 with respect to the May 10, 2010
elections.
SO ORDERED.
46.
To
put it directly, despite the clarity of the meaning of the phrase “STATUS QUO”,
it being easy to understand even by high school students, the individual
persons composing the public respondent BLATANTLY DISOBEYED the “STATUS QUO
ORDERS”;
47.
The
BLATANT DISOBEDIENCE TO THE SUPREME COURT was committed NOT ONLY ONCE BUT 13
TIMES!;
48.
The
respondents are deemed to have committed the same as one count for every
affected partylist group, starting with ALAM;
49.
Moreover,
the respondent committed the same act of stripping ALAM and 12 other partylist
groups WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW;
50.
As
such, they also committed CULPABLE VIOLATION of the Constitution and violated
the Lawyer’s Oath in the requirement that all lawyers must support the
Constitution;
51.
The
respondents did not even require any explanation from ALAM and 12 other
partylist groups to explain why they should not be excluded from the partylist
elections of 2013;
52.
Moreover,
these officials of the Commission committed the acts of prejudicing ALAM and 12
other partylist groups in exceeding dispatch in order for the respondents to succeed
in their malicious design or predetermination to disqualify Alab ng Mamamahayag
(ALAM) and the rest of the “Lucky 13”;
53.
While
the drawing of lots was yet drawing to a close in the afternoon of January 4,
2013, Chairman Brillantes already announced that it was a big blunder that the
“Lucky 13” was included in the raffle;
54.
Right
there and then, he announced to the media that he will schedule an en banc
session for the purpose of excluding ALAM and 12 others;
55.
January
4 was a Friday and he got no more time.
In the morning of Monday, January 7, 2013, he made true his
announcement: they promulgated Resolution No. 9604, excluding ALAM and 12
others on the ground that these should be excluded on the basis of their
Resolution No. 9591 promulgated on 19 December 2012.
56.
Days
before this January 7 resolution was promulgated, Chairman Brillantes was
issuing statements to the media that partylist groups that are in the class of
ALAM, those that were denied by the Comelec but issued a Status Quo order by
the Supreme Court cannot participate in the raffle unless these can obtain a
MANDATORY INJUNCTION from the High Court.
57.
That
he did despite his knowledge that IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A MANDATORY
INJUNCTION because this is issued only after the case is terminated;
58.
He
knew that the petitions of these “Lucky 13” groups had just been filed and the
Comelec through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) had not yet even
submitted its comment to the petitions of those partylist groups that have run
to the Supreme Court as the last bastion of justice;
59.
Nevertheless,
although he also issued pronouncements to the media that they were confused by
the meaning of Status Quo orders, he cannot feign ignorance because he is a
lawyer and a bar topnotcher at that;
60.
All
the other commissioners aside from Commissioner Padaca are topnotch lawyers,
too. As such, it is impossible for them not to understand the legal meaning of
Status Quo order;
61.
If
at all, they intentionally did that act of promulgating Resolution No. 9604;
and
62.
Hence,
it is very clear that the respondents must be disbarred for setting a bad
example to the lawyers.
IN WITNESS
WHEREOF,
I sign the instant Complaint for Disbarment on this _____ of February 2013 in
Manila.
BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED
AND SWORN TO BEFORE me on this ___ of February 2013 in Manila, affiant exhibited
his IBP ID No. 60944. I further certify that I examined the affiant and I am
satisfied that he read and understood the affidavit and that the same is his
voluntary act.
Doc.
No: ____;
Page
No.: ____;
Book
No.: ____;
Series
2013.
x---------------------------------------------x
Republic of
the Philippines )
City of
Manila )SC
Verification
& Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping
I, Berteni Cataluña Causing, of legal age, Filipino, whose postal
address is at Unit 1, No. 2368 Leon Guinto St. corner JB Roxas St., Malate,
Manila, under oath, hereby depose and state:
1.
I
am the complainant in the foregoing Complaint for Disbarment;
2.
I
read and understood the same;
3.
The
contents therein are true of my personal knowledge and based on authentic
records;
4.
I
certify that I have not filed in any other venue and jurisdiction any action having
the same facts, laws involved, and reliefs prayed for;
5.
Should
I learn of one such action, I undertake to inform the Court in five (5) days
from notice.
IN WITNESS
WHEREOF,
I sign the instant Complaint for Disbarment on this _____ of February 2013 in
Manila.
BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED
AND SWORN TO BEFORE me on this ___ of February 2013 in Manila, affiant exhibited
his IBP ID No. 60944. I further certify that I examined the affiant and I am
satisfied that he read and understood the affidavit and that the same is his
voluntary act.
Doc.
No: ____;
Page
No.: ____;
Book
No.: ____;
Series
2013.
Comments