I have never lied to any judge. I have never attempted to bribe anyone. And I always–ALWAYS–counsel clients to desist from doing acts that tend to subvert the integrity of our courts–and by extension, the legal profession.

This is why I am extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court merely meted a brief suspension penalty against Justice Jose Sabio. After all, what is two months? Some overworked judges may even be grateful to be allowed a short sabbatical which can be spent drinking piñacoladas aboard a cruise ship.

There was no real difference in the level of impropriety between the acts of Justice Vicente Roxas and Justice Sabio. Both exhibited extraordinary interest in being the ponente for the Meralco/GSIS case. Being only Court of Appeals justices, none of their ponencias were posed to become important jurisprudence that would form part of the law of the land. Normally, lesser mortals have to agonize for several months before their cases (or pending incidents) could be resolved due to the “heavy caseload” of Court of Appeals justices. Yet, here we have two justices belonging to different divisions squabbling over who gets to write the ponencia for the Meralco/GSIS case as if their careers depended on it.

Justice Roxas fabricated a transcript of deliberations that did not take place, so his dismissal was rightfully called for. But Justice Sabio was let off lightly, and unjustly so. He entertained his crony, Francis de Borja, and his brother Camilo Sabio, who both tried to influence him on the Meralco/GSIS case. One communicated to him the promise of monetary consideration, while the other dangled the possibility of promotion to the Supreme Court. Justice Sabio could have refused to talk about the case. He could have denied being the ponente. Howsoever he evaded the intimations made by his friend and his brother is fine, so long as he didn’t talk about the case outside the court and lay himself open to temptation and challenges to his integrity.

Unfortunately, Justice Sabio must have felt beholden to De Borja since he did receive P300,000.00 from the latter many years ago when he was still a trial court judge. In consultancy fees, they say. But wait… Is it proper for a trial court judge to: a) engage in consultancy work; b) for a fee; c) without written authority from the Supreme Court; d) within his territorial area; e) in a matter over which he may exercise jurisdiction should the deal fall through and litigation ensue?

That Justice Sabio is a professor in Legal Ethics should even be considered an aggravating circumstance, as his education should have better forewarned and guided him in his actions. In the final analysis, whether the amount involved in the bribery case was P10Million or P50Million doesn’t matter. What matters is the fact that justices live in a glass house. In wielding the power to deprive any citizen of his life, liberty and property, the members of the judiciary should be acutely and constantly aware that they too, are subject to the same possibility of deprivation for cause. If nothing else, this heightened awareness ought to make them doubly wary of the smallest decisions they make.

In his media interviews, Justice Roxas has not manifested any intention to appeal his dismissal. Maybe he has recognized his fault. But justice has not been fully served since J. Sabio will be back in two months’ time. I wonder: which lessons will the members of the judiciary learn from this episode? I hope that it will be that they stand to suffer the dire fate of Justice Roxas in the event of misconduct. What is frightening is that they may instead remember Justice Sabio’s precedent, i.e., that if you get caught, you get to take a break from your caseload for two months and come back refreshed, ready to resume teaching legal ethics to impressionable law students who will be the next leaders of our nation.