DOJ prosecutor apologizes to judge handling Ong case

The Department of Justice (DOJ), through one of its government lawyers, yesterday apologized to a Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge whom it earlier accused of being anti-government following the latter’s decision to dismiss a serious illegal detention case filed against former National Bureau of Investigation deputy director Samuel Ong.

First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jaime Umpa, in a five-page compliance, said he never intended to insult or disrespect Branch 139 Judge Benjamin Pozon when he somehow accused him of siding with the accused, meeting with him elsewhere other than the courtroom, and having it in the judge’s mind the acquittal of the accused at whatever cost it may take.

The alleged contemptuous remarks were contained in the prosecution’s motion for inhibition filed May 3, 2006 specifically in paragraph’s three and four of the same.

Pozon, in hearing the motion last May 12, ordered Umpa to explain within 10 days why he should not be cited for contempt in so far as using foul language is concerned.

Human rights lawyer Rene Saguisag even used the contents of the motion for inhibition as among the many bases in filing a petition for contempt against DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzalez on grounds that he is disrespecting the judiciary and violating the lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

"If the panel’s motion for inhibition had slighted and tended to show disrespect to the integrity and dignity of the Honorable Court, I hereby offer my profuse apology," Umpa said.

"As the chairman of the panel of prosecutors for the present case, and the sole signatory to the motion for inhibition, I take full responsibility," he said while assuring that "any disrespect that might have been caused was unintentional and free from malice and bad faith."

"It was a result of pure oversight and of an honest mistake in the choice of words and/or phraseology," he told Pozon hoping the judge would understand.

Umpa explained that the motion for inhibition should be considered in its entire context and focus should not be taken on the individual statements made.

According to him, the phrases that do not have their roots in law or in jurisprudence should not be taken literally noting that the line "he (Pozon) should have first required their (Ong) appearance before granting their motion to dismiss, unless he and the accused met somewhere else," did not mean or imply that I am accusing the Honorable Judge of meeting the accused somewhere beyond the bounds allowed by law.

"It was never intended to be a statement of fact. Rather, it was more of an attempt to drive home the point that the Honorable Judge should have first required the appearance of the accused as I was certain that the accused could not have possibly appeared before judge without us knowing. And this impossibility of the accused appearing before the Honorable Judge was as impossible as the Judge and the accused meeting somewhere," he said.

Umpa said the same explanation applies to the statement that said "Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code and the ruling of the Supreme Court in People vs Ubongen both cited by the panel in its resolution, could not have possibly escaped the attention of Judge Pozon, unless he had in its mind the acquittal of the accused at whatever cost it may take."

"Taking the statement in relation to the other parts of the motion will not give the impression that I am accusing the Honorable Judge of having prematurely set his mind in acquitting the accused," the government lawyer noted.

"Again, this was never intended to be a statement of fact and to insult the Honorable Court. I believe that the Honorable Judge would not taint his unblemished reputation by doing something unbecoming of a judge," he said.

Umpa stressed that in his 15 years of practice of the legal profession, he always faithfully observed his sworn duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts, "to which I owe fidelity."

"Offending the senses of the Honorable Court is, thus, farthest from my mind," he said assuring that he will be more circumspect in the preparation of pleadings to avoid repetition of similar lapses in the future.

Though he apologized for his apparently imprudent choice of words and also apologized for Gonzalez’s statement that Pozon was anti-government considering that the DOJ Secretary was allegedly misquoted, Umpa said their motion asking the judge to inhibit himself from the Ong case still stands.