Hoodlums in Robes

20 October 2013

I first heard of the words “hoodlums in robes” during the inauguration of ex-President Erap in June 1998 who vowed to go after the corrupt judges, thus, another confirmation of the public’s perception then of widespread corruption in the judiciary.

 This fighting stance of the newly sworn president, elating as I heard it, however, ended up instead in disappointment as the supposed “hunter” was himself forced by public pressure to leave the presidency because of corruption charges.

But what turned out as an irony is that instead of the unseating and eventual conviction of a president becoming a major example that should discourage the progress of corruption, the reverse occurred. Unquestionably (as far as I’m concerned), like a fertilized plant, the malady blossomed further during the regime that followed, and although the level dipped rather significantly during the first 3 years of the current administration (see http://www.sws.org.ph/pr050125.htm  and “The TAG 2012 SWS Surveys on Corruption”), these corruption levels, currently, are still uncomfortably high and warrant an intensified partnership (and effort) between the government and the concerned public in fighting it.

With respect to the judiciary, the 2012 IBP National President, Atty. Roan I. Libarios, in his editorial in “The Bar Tribune” posted 8/20/2012 (http://ibp.ph/PDF/PresCorner/A%20Defining%20Moment.pdf) mentioned of an SWS survey that says that public’s “perception of corruption in the judiciary is pervasive.” This conclusion was further supported by statistics indicating that 39% of “judges and justices asks for bribes”, 36% of “litigants pay bribes”, and 20% of “lawyers suggest bribes to win cases.”

Two weeks ago, Mr. Jarius Bondoc of the Philippine Star revealed in his column (PS, 7 October) the existence of a certain Ma’am Arlene who he likens to Janet Napoles in the sense that this Ma’am Arlene acts like she “owns the judiciary”, in the same manner that Napoles acts like “she owns the congress.” Reportedly, this Ma’am Arlene has “court bigwigs and key personnel in her payroll”, as well as influence that extends all the way to the DOJ and the Office of the Ombudsman, and is reputed to be a “notorious fixer of cases with investigators, prosecutors and magistrates.”

Mr. Bondoc, in a subsequent column mentioned that SC Administrator Midas Marquez reacted to his expose’ and wrote that “his office has long been investigating [this] Ma’am Arlene” and asked for helpful information. It turned out also that Marquez, has claimed to have actually uncovered 3 Arlenes instead.

I wonder how long Marquez has been working on his investigation, because based on information regarding this issue that’s rapidly flowing out, this (or these) Arlene(s) have been operating successfully already for quite some time (which explains the clout that she allegedly established in the judiciary community). She even reportedly earned being seated at the head table during the Philippine Judges Association conference in Bacolod last year (which the Chief Justice addressed), and is even said to have influenced the election of the PJA officers about 2 weeks ago.

I also wonder why he seems to be dilly dallying with his investigation, or maybe he is just not a competent investigator. Perhaps he hasn’t heard that more than a year ago, even the then IBP National President came out with the SWS statistics regarding corruption in the judiciary. I only hope that he comes out transparent with this activity because after having observed his actuations during the trial of his boss last year, I, and I believe a large part of the public, especially the netizens, aren’t comfortable with his being on top of this investigation. As it is now, my personal impression is that the issue is starting to get muddled by the appearance, suddenly, of multiple Ma’am Arlenes.

It’s a good development though that the Chief Justice decided to tap the services of the DOJ/NBI, which to me is the right move because they are the ones with the skills, resources and network that could effectively gather needed evidence.

It is high time that a real clearing and cleaning of the judiciary of corrupt persons is done, and those that are guilty should be convicted and jailed regardless of who they are or where they are in the judiciary's hierarchy.

But, just like with the matter of the corrupt legislators and corrupt officials/personnel of government agencies, this cleaning needed in the judiciary can be successfully achieved only through the joint effort and determination of the players in the judicial community, i.e. the trial lawyers, the litigants and the “still” virtuous judges themselves, all of whom should courageously report corruption related activities. But in addition to this would be the significant involvement of the public, especially the netizens, who can, by sustaining focus – through the social media network - on any exposed judicial anomaly until it is resolved, can provide the psychological (and maybe even the material) strength to whoever the change proponent is. In the same manner, public and netizen pressure could also prevent vested interests from thwarting efforts against corruption.

Comments/reactions will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko @gmail.com) or this writer’s blog (http://mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com).