G.R. No. A.M. No. SB-14-21-J. January 19, 2021.
RE: ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER OATH AT THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE HEARING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 AGAINST GREGORY S. ONG, SANDIGANBAYAN.

FACTS

This is a Plea for Judicial Clemency filed by former Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory S. Ong. In 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed Ong from service for gross misconduct, dishonesty, and impropriety, all in violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. The administrative case stemmed from Ong’s participation in the Sandiganbayan case of People v. Lt. Gen. Edgardo Viray Espinosa (the Kevlar case), where Janet Lim Napoles was an accused. Ong concurred in the 2010 decision that acquitted Napoles of malversation and falsification charges. In 2013, during a Senate Blue Ribbon Committee investigation into the “pork barrel scam,” whistleblowers Benhur Luy and Marina Sula testified that Napoles had settled the Kevlar case through Ong, who visited her office twice. Luy further testified that during a second visit, Ong invested P25.5 million with Napoles in AFPSLAI, with Napoles issuing checks for advance interest. A photo also surfaced showing Ong with Napoles and former Senator Jinggoy Estrada. The Court conducted a motu proprio investigation. Ong denied knowing Napoles while the case was pending, claimed the photo was from a 2012 party, and explained his office visit was to thank Napoles for helping him access a relic for his prostate cancer, asserting no impropriety as she had no pending case then. The Court found Ong guilty, giving credence to the whistleblowers’ testimonies and finding his explanations uncorroborated. He was dismissed with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and prejudice to reemployment.
Five years later, Ong filed this plea, praying for the restoration of his retirement benefits and the lifting of the reemployment prohibition. He claims to have become a remorseful and better individual, accepted the Court’s decision, and continued to provide free legal service. He cites economic necessity and maintains he never exchanged judicial duties for monetary consideration. He submitted supporting testimonies from retired Justice Jose P. Perez (who dissented in the original case), former IBP President Atty. Vicente M. Joyas, his spiritual adviser Rev. Fr. Alexander P. Balatbat, and a Masonic lodge master, WM Rogelio R. Uy, Jr., all attesting to his good character and reputation. He also attached an NBI clearance and later a medical abstract showing a recurrence of his prostate cancer.

ISSUE

Whether or not judicial clemency should be granted to former Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory S. Ong, thereby restoring his retirement benefits and lifting the prohibition against his reemployment in government service.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the Plea for Judicial Clemency. The Court clarified the nature of clemency as an extraordinary act of mercy based on equity, not a right, and emphasized it must be balanced with preserving public confidence in the judiciary. For clemency to be granted, the claimant must show evidence of reformation and potential. The Court, applying the guidelines from In Re: Diaz, found Ong’s plea insufficient. The Court noted that while Ong expressed acceptance of the decision, he simultaneously maintained his innocence regarding the core accusation of exchanging judicial action for monetary consideration, stating he never “reneged on his duties… in exchange for monetary consideration.” The Court held that a plea for clemency requires an unconditional acceptance of the wrong committed and the justness of the penalty. Ong’s qualified acceptance, by insisting on his innocence on the central issue of corruption, fell short of the full and unequivocal remorse required. The supporting testimonials, while noting his good reputation, did not negate the gravity of the misconduct for which he was dismissed—acts that eroded public trust in the integrity of the Sandiganbayan. The Court concluded that granting clemency under these circumstances would undermine the exacting standards of judicial conduct and the need to preserve the judiciary’s integrity. The plea was therefore denied.