Yesterday an IBP spokesperson said that the IBP denied my motions for reconsideration because I did not raise new arguments. Again, it is unfortunate that the IBP finds the arguments raised in my motions as refurbished. I beg to differ from this observation.
My appeal raised specific new challenges to the IBP decision denying my earlier motion for summary disposition. In my latest motions, I challenged the IBP to do the following:
- Specify any document, whether from the Supreme Court or the IBP, stating that there is a finding of prima facie merit in the disbarment complaints, and the reasons for such a finding;
- Specify any rule, either of the Rules of Court or the IBP Rules onBar Discipline, stating that referral of a disbarment complaint by the Court to the IBP presumes a prima facie finding of merit by the Court;
- Debunk the jurisprudence laid down in Gatmaytan v. Ilao (A.C. No. 6086, January 26, 2005) and Cottam v. Laysa (A.C. No. 4834, February 29, 2000) on the need for a specific and official prima facie finding of merit even in cases referred to the IBP by the Court, before a disbarment complaint can be considered for further proceedings and investigation;
- Debunk prevailing practice by the Court of automatically assigning disbarment complaints erroneously filed before the Court to the IBP without any prima facie finding of merit;
- Consider non-referral of the Court's own show cause order in the GMA TRO case to a Court investigating officer IN THE PAST EIGHT MONTHS as evidence of lack of a prima facie merit of the charge of disobedience initially raised against me by the Court itself; and
- Determine the cause of action raised in the Sundiam complaint using basic concepts in pleadings as laid down in Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, if the IBP is actually able to find any.
These are just a few of the challenges I raised before the IBP. These challenges the IBP spokesperson failed to address squarely in her statement to the media. Fairness dictates that the IBP respond to these challenges in the specific, rather than cast general comments of no new arguments presented, as this is farthest from the truth.
I ask the IBP to be more candid and comprehensive in its statements as the matter involves enlightened discussion beyond media sound bites and generic retorts that do not help to clarify the issues I raised before the IBP.