A. M. No.
88-4-5433 April 15, 1988
IN RE FIRST INDORSEMET FROM HONORABLE RAUL M. GONZALEZ DATED
16 MARCH 1988 REQUESTING HONORABLE JUSTICE MARCELO B. FERNAN
TO COMMENT ON AN ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT.
FACTS:
The Tanodbayan/ Special Prosecutor, Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez forwarded to
Justice Marcelo B. Fernan a First Indorsement dated 16 March 1988 together with an
attached anonymous letter-complaint dated 14 December 1987 from a “Concerned
Employees of the Supreme Court and a telegram from Miguel Cuenco, for comment
within ten (10) days from receipt. The anonymous letter addressed to Hon. Gonzalez
refers to the disbarment charges filed by Miguel Cuenco against Justice Fernan and
a requests for Hon. Gonzalez to act on it. The copy of the telegram from Miguel
Cuenco refers to the pleadings he apparently filed on 29 February 1988 with the
Supreme Court in Administrative Case No. 3135. In the said administraive case, Mr.
Cuenco alleged that Hon. Gonzalez made an improper “intervention”.
Due to the improtant implications of policy raised by the First Endorsement,
Justice Fernan brought it to the attention of the court en banc.
ISSUE/S:
1.Whether or not a member/ justice of the Supreme Court be subjected to
disbarment proceedings while he is still in office or still an incumbent? Or Whether
or not an incumbent member/ justice of the Supreme Court be subjected to a
disbarment proceedings?
COURT/S RULING.
No. A member/ Justice of the Supreme Court cannot be subjected to a
disbarment proceedings while he is still in office.
The Court held that:
“It is important to underscore the rule of constitution law here
involved. This principle may be succinctly formulated in the following terms. A
public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a Member of the
Philippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by him and who may be
removed from office only by impeachment, cannot be charged with disbarment
during the incumbency of such public officer. Further, such public officer, during
his incumbency, cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or
any other court with any offence which carries with it the penalty of removal
from office, or any penalty service of which would amount to removal from
office.”
xxx xxx xxx
It is important to make clear that the Court is not here saying that it
Members or the other constitutional officers we referred to above are entitled
to immunity from liability for possibly criminal acts or for alleged violation of
the Canons of Judicial Ethics or other supposed misbehavior. What the
Court is saying is that there is a fundamental procedural requirements that
must be observed before such liability may be determined and enforced. A
Member of the Supreme Court must first be removed from office via the
constitutional route of impeachment under Sections 2 and 3 of Article XI of
the 1987 Constitution. Should the tenure of the Supreme Court Justice be
thus terminated by impeachment, he may then be held to answer either
criminally or administratively (by disbarment proceedings) for any wrong or
misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings.
The above rule rests on the fundamental principles of judicial
independence and separation of powers. The rule is important because
judicial independence is important. Without the protection of this rule,
Members of the Supreme Court would be brought against them by
unsuccessful litigants or their lawyers or by other parties who, for any
number of reasons might seek to affect the exercise of judicial authority by
the Court.
