CA conducts own ‘Arlene’ probe

MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) will conduct its own investigation into reported fixing of cases by a certain “Ma’am Arlene,” the counterpart of alleged pork barrel scam brains Janet Lim-Napoles in the judiciary.

CA Presiding Justice Andres Reyes Jr. has ordered an internal probe on allegations of “case fixing” operations by a clerk in the appellate court, one of the three “Ma’am Arlenes” pinpointed by Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez as known fixers in the judiciary.

“While we have jurisdiction over the CA, the presiding justice also shares our jurisdiction. He vowed to conduct a thorough, impartial probe,” Marquez said yesterday.

Marquez said Reyes would submit a report on their findings and recommendations after 30 days.

Arlene is reportedly a Clerk 4 in the CA who fixes unspecified cases before unspecified justices and divisions. Her identity was already known but was not revealed pending verification by investigators.

Marquez, however, clarified the CA probe would not cover the two other Arlenes who are reportedly a former employee at the Manila regional trial court and a staff at the Manila City Hall because they are not covered by the jurisdiction of the appellate court.

The Office of Court Administrator discreetly started its probe and traced the charges to a supposed “smear campaign” in the recently concluded elections of officers in the Philippine Judges Association (PJA).

Quezon City regional trial court Judge Ralph Lee won the PJA presidency over Makati City RTC Judge Rommel Baybay and Marikina City RTC Judge Felix Reyes. Marquez has already sought the explanation of the three judges on the issue.

Judge Reyes submitted his comment to the Office of Court Administrator last Monday, while the two others have yet to comply with the order.

Marquez also stressed that whatever transgressions one or any of the three had committed would pale in comparison to Napoles’ wrongdoing.

Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, for her part, tapped the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) last Monday to conduct a parallel probe on criminal aspects of the controversy.

It was Justice Secretary Leila de Lima who volunteered the NBI’s assistance to the SC.

De Lima said the special NBI team to conduct the probe would be composed today.

A member of the Supreme Court, however, raised the legality of Sereno tapping the NBI to conduct a parallel probe.

The insider said the jurisdiction of the NBI on the controversy maybe raised as a “valid legal issue.”

“If you look at jurisprudence, all criminal charges against members of the judiciary related to the performance of their duties are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the office of the court administrator,” the source explained.

“Criminal case against a judge only falls under the jurisdiction of the DOJ or ombudsman when the act allegedly committed was done outside his official functions,” the source said.

The source refused to be named so as not to preempt any action of the high court since the issue could be raised before their full court session on Thursday.

SC spokesman Theodore Te earlier said there is no such issue on jurisdiction because the NBI probe is anyway “very limited” to two issues: possible violation of applicable criminal laws in the recently-concluded election of the PJA by any or all of the presidential candidates, and the identity of private persons who appear to have unlawfully influenced specific members of the judiciary in the outcome of specific cases.

But the source explained the SC and Office of Court Administrator need not tap an agency outside the judiciary to conduct a fact-finding probe.