Punish them!

Three in one day, that was the number of judges and court cases that became the focus of The Philippine STAR editorial on Feb. 3 that harped on how judges “gravely abused discretion” and ignored strong evidence.”

The first case mentioned in the editorial was about bail being allowed for six suspects in the “Missing Sabungeros” case in spite of a video showing them forcing the “victims” into a van. The sabungeros have never been seen since then and the chances of rearresting the six suspects are slim to none.

The second/third case in The STAR editorial involves Judge Irin Zenaida Buan of the Angeles City RTC Branch 56 who allowed former police colonel Rafael Dumlao III to post bail for the October 2016 gangland style execution of South Korean businessman Jee Ick-Joo in his car inside Camp Crame.

In 2023, Angeles RTC Branch 60 Judge Eda Dizon acquitted Dumlao.

In July 2024, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed Dizon’s ruling and declared Dumlao as the mastermind of the kidnapping and killing of Jee Ick-Joo.

The Supreme Court commented that the CA found the RTC proceedings to be “a sham and an apparent mockery of the judicial process, making Dumlao’s acquittal a foregone conclusion and in total disregard of the evidence.”

Now, there is another controversial case that started at the Malabon Regional Trial Court and now involves the First Division of the Supreme Court decision declaring the Fisheries Code of the Philippines preferential access provisions as “unconstitutional.”

The code or law provides protection for small-scale fisherfolk by prohibiting commercial fishing vessels from entering “municipal waters,” which is a distance of 15 kilometers from the shoreline. The distance is stated in the Philippine Fisheries Code as well as the Local Government Code (RA No. 7160).

But unlike the missing sabungeros case and the case against Col. Rafael Dumlao, the RTC and SC First Division decision on constitutionality of the Fisheries Code runs against established laws supported by government policies and agencies.

It is hard to imagine that the combined knowledge and authority of government and both houses of Congress would be ignorant or blind to the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a law as well as multiple related programs of government.

For the longest time, the government as well as the fishing sector have honored and respected the 15-kilometer no commercial fishing zone, not only to protect the livelihood of subsistence fisherfolk but recognizing the fact that it creates a sanctuary where fish and marine life are able to reproduce in a sustainable environment.

Are we to assume that the Fisheries Code of the Philippines and the Local Government Code must now be rewritten or trashed, given the decision of the Malabon RTC and the SC First Division? Who then is ignorant of the law? Lawmakers, or judges and justices?

As a result of the Malabon RTC and SC First Division decision, both the public and private sector are up in arms. In the beginning, the first to cry foul were municipal mayors and fisherfolk organizations. Then, environmentalists and marine-focused activists such as Oceana are now speaking out against the decision.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines has come out with their statement of support for fisherfolk and sent out a pastoral letter to be read in masses and churches under the signatory bishops. That has not happened in a long time, so the CBCP is surely concerned.

Former Agriculture secretary Leonardo Montemayor and his Federation of Free Framers have spoken out against the decision, while current Secretary of Agriculture Francisco Tiu Laurel Jr. expressed concern and warned of the potential adverse effects on the livelihood of small fishers and its impact on the marine ecosystem.

In response to the decision, the Department of Agriculture has filed a motion for reconsideration through the Office of the Solicitor General. Given this widespread multisectoral reaction, it would be safe to say that the SC would be wise to call for an emergency session to contain the potential crisis.

Being so close to the campaign and election period, it is likely that more fuel will go into the fire, so to speak, and the last thing the “Gods of Padre Faura” would want is to be dragged into a whirlwind of public suspicion and condemnation. Clarify and correct the matter or get a taste of the same medicine the RTC judges should be given.

Speaking of which, what punishment has the Supreme Court dished out for the three Judges who “abused their discretion and ignored evidence?” Will they get the same punishment provided for the crimes they are hearing in their courts? If not, maybe it’s about time they do.

And what about the decision declaring the preferential access provision of the Fisheries Code as “unconstitutional?” Isn’t that too serious a matter for an RTC judge or the First Division to decide? Shouldn’t the entire Supreme Court en banc decide on questions of “constitutionality” as a whole or even form and substance of legislations?

To the credit of the Supreme Court, it has been vigilant in terms of disciplining lawyers guilty of misconduct, immorality and criminal acts. Judges have not been spared either, but given the gravity of the cases mentioned above, perhaps it is time for a “serious huddle” at the SC to refresh monitoring and regulation, internally and in the lower courts.

In a country where the word “secret” does not apply, it would be a good idea to thoroughly wash all the dirty linen.

*      *      *

“Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God.” – Deuteronomy 1:17