REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Office of the Court Administrator SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A In the matter of the column Business

Circuit, of Amado Macasaet in the September 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2007 issues of Malaya A.M. NO. A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC
For: Indirect Contempt (Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,

(123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos, 3000 Bulacan) Petitioner-in-Intervention, X----------------------------------------------------------------X

Verified Manifestation with Motions - to Reconsider, Re-Open and For New Trial & Prayer For Leave of Court With Tender of Payment of Docket Fees Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, the Members, En Banc, Supreme Court, and Mme. Justice Carolina Grio-Aquino, Chairperson, 59-D Tuason St., Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, M.M., Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, Member, 373 Matienza St., San Miguel, Manila, M.M., and Mr. Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr, Member, Vice-Chancellor, PHILJA, Supreme Court, Manila, M.M. Your Honors, I, the undersigned petitioner-in-intervention, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, by MYSELF and for MYSELF, as litigant / petitioner, concerned citizen, and taxpayer, inter alia, in this case, AND WITH LEAVE OF COURT, most respectfully depose and say, that: Manifestation of Receipt of Decision / Notice & 2 S.C. Denial Resolutions 1. I received on August 22, 2008, copies of the Decision, in the aboveentitled case and Notice thereof, hence, the timeliness of this pleading. 2. I received copies of S.C. Resolutions dated 16 October and 13 November, 2008 (denying my Petition due to non-payment of docket fees, and denying my

motion for reconsideration, respectively), on November 8 and December 5, 2007, respectively. Prayer for Leave of Court to Admit and Grant this Pleading Master Thesis: Inconvenient Truth 3. Procedural Rights of the Accused-contemnor accused Amado Macasaet is entitled to most of the same protections available in any criminal prosecution. As the U.S. Supreme Court observed in In re Oliver (1947) 333 U.S. 257, 273-75, "A person's right to an opportunity to be heard in his defense -- a right to his day in court -- are basic in our system of jurisprudence; and these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel. . . . [O]ne charged with contempt of court [is entitled to] be advised of the charges against him, have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation, have the right to be represented by counsel, and have a chance to testify and call other witnesses in his behalf, either by way of defense or explanation." The alleged contemnor is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Bridges v. Superior Court (1939) 14 Cal. 2d 464, 485, rev'd on other grounds, 314 U.S. 252. The burden is on the party seeking a finding of contempt to establish such charges by competent evidence. Ransom v. Superior Court (1968) 262 Cal. App. 2d 271, 275-76. Accordingly, even though the contempt proceeding may be styled as an "Order to Show Cause," the procedural reality is that the accused contemnor, like any criminal defendant, is not required to do (or "show") anything. Just as in a criminal prosecution, it is up to the charging party to adduce sufficient competent evidence, through percipient witnesses and other permissible sources, to establish each element of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. Petitioner will no longer dwell and argue on the other legal points, since the dissenting opinions already carved the illegality of the sentence upon accused Macasaet. Petitioner will now start to plea to this Court of last resort, on the higher plane of transencental value to Filipinos - even if most of Filipino

bloggers, jurists and ordinary men on the streets alike compose the worldfamous Philippine delicacy called crab mentality. Petitioner goes on to say, that, this case illegally traveled from the simple bribery thing, to the not so important indirect contempt-towards-libel. This is anathema to our Constitution, since our fundamental law, never envisioned that Truth entombed is the agenda in most MTC, RTC, CA and even SC Bribery cases, since June 12, 1901. But it is, a matter of critical fact. 5. Petitioner continues this way. But before walking on, petitioner reminds accused Macasaet, that as journalist-eminent-publisher, he of course needed the minority opinions brand of breathing space. It is further legal truism, however, that any member of the High Tribunal can only be investigated and punished not by the Senate, House or tabloids-daily-papers-online-Internetreports-wires, but by the Impeachment Court. For this reason, all Supreme Court Justices had never been removed since 1901 despite Gods judging things even in dire secrecy amid the 5 mystic FIREs that remained OMEN to the judicial department, inter alia. 6. This does not mean however, that, Macasaet is legally dead and Malaya has no remedy, for: Ubi jus, ibi remedium. But before, petitioner jogs on, with his little piece to the Court, he delivers to Macasaet his credentials: Judge Floro is an authority in Criminal Law, with the unbroken record of 91% Criminal Law Review grade from 1975-1985, under Dean Antonio L. Gregorio (never overtaken by 10 Ateneo Valedictorians, not even duplicated by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. and other eminent amici curiae). Macasaet, however, must be cautioned, since Judge Floro was sentenced by the Court to be psychotic and not insane due to dwarf consultation amid the 3 elves Ungodly reprisal (the latest casualties are ). 7. Now, direct to the point. Petitioner delivers the homily to Macasaet, that, cheap journalism, using the fishing expedition to ferret the truth on bribery, might have raised funds for Malayas depleted resources due to low

sales. However, his bribery story is below the belt, for lack of must-be-uploaded critical FACTS that would point to the real culprit concerning the Pandoras or rather Delis P 10 million box. Petitioner does not bite Macasaets version, since Marites Vitug wrote about the bribery with cut clarity. Macasaet had the facts but pruned, edited, and he amended his story, for the sake of legal protection, and he was, now, with this petite slap on his cute cheeks. 8. Seriously, petitioner, as a devout closed Catholic and ex-JesuitVincentian candidate to the priesthood, who devoted his life to the LIGHT Lux in Domino, which is Truth, Chirst states, that:
a. Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago will retire on October 5, 1909. From

that date, Macasaet has the remedy to ferret the truth which is, at this point of time, entombed. If Christ resurrected, then, Veritas may. b. How? The facts: The profile of Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago is quoted:
Appointed on April 6, 1999 as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago is the first female member of the Supreme Court who rose from the ranks, having begun her career as a Municipal Judge - proof that seniority, competence and fitness in the career service reign supreme in the Judiciary. A product of the UP College of Law where she graduated in 1962, Justice YnaresSantiago started her career in the judiciary in 1973 when she was appointed Municipal Judge of Cainta, Rizal, a position she held for thirteen years. In November 1986, she was appointed Regional Trial Court Judge of Makati where she remained until her appointment to the Court of Appeals in 1990. She is the celebrated judge who, during the Marcos regime, acquitted former Education Secretary Alejandro Roces on charges of the violation of the Election Code when he boycotted the April 7, 1981 plebiscite. It was also Justice YnaresSantiago, then a Regional Trial Court Judge of Makati designated by the Supreme Court as Hearing Commissioner, who recommended the opening of Banco Filipino. A native of Binangonan, Rizal, where she was born on October 5, 1939. She was married to Atty. Francisco B. Santiago (founder of law firm, "FB Santiago, Nalus and Associates") until his death in July 1996 from a heart attack. Early in 2003, her son Dr. Jonas Santiago (of St. Luke's Hospital, Quezon City), supervised the removal of one of her kidneys at the Philippine Kidney Center. but also a devoted mother to four (4) accomplished children: Jonas Francisco, a doctor of medicine, graduate of the UP PGH, now Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Center Director and Nuclear Medicine Department Chairman at St. Lukes Medical Center; Regina Carmela, another doctor of medicine, graduate of UERMMC, currently an Active Staff Consultant in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Medical

City; Jennylind Allison, a graduate of BS HRM at UP and Post-Graduate Course in Marketing at the University of California at Berkeley, now Marketing Executive in MERALCO.

Atty. Pura Angelica Santiago serves as Corporate Secretary to several companies, some of which are: PJB Pacific Securities (Phils.), Manila Luxury Condominium Association, Champagne Edition Condominium Association, YS Properties, Inc., Nippon Credit, Inc. and others. She is also a Lecturer in Business Law at the School of Management of the University of Asia and the Pacific. She joined the PRIMEX Board of Directors in 1997 with the engagement of their law firm as Legal Counsel. As Corporate Secretary of PRIMEX, she
plans and prepares the agenda for the Directors' and Stockholders' Meetings together with the Chairman and the President. She records the Minutes of the meetings and prepares the directors' and stockholders' resolutions approved and adopted at the meetings.

PRIMEX is a top Philippine management consulting firm. Over the period 1

January 1999 31 December 2004, PRIMEX ranked second and third among Filipino consulting firms involved in ADB technical assistance and loan-funded projects, respectively. Since its founding in August 1989, the Company has established an enviable reputation with international financing institutions and public and private sector clients in the Philippines and overseas, based on its consistently outstanding performance in projects it designed and managed. PRIMEX's Ongoing projects include - RETA 6321, Health Insurance, COREMAP, RETA 6305, MINSSAD, TA 4629-PRC, ADTA 4708, TA 4667, RETA 6108 (SARS), TA 4815-INDIA, SPISP, STOP AI Manila Luxury Condominium unit - Pearl Drive corner Gold Loop, Ortigas Center, Pasig City Pearl Drive corner Gold Loop, Ortigas Center, Pasig City Price:P 9,000,000.00 Floor Area: 193.50 square meters Champagne Edition Condominium - St. Josemaria Escriva Drive, Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines Nippon Credit Co., Inc. MAIN OFFICE - Unit 901 OMM Citra Bldg. San Miguel Ave., Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Tel.No. (02) 910-0737, Fax: (02) 910-0833
c. Judge Floro, authority in Criminal Law, cites his scholarly and brilliantly

researched 100-pages pleading in the GSIS-Meralco bribery case1 Respondents' "Big CA 8" Assets: Acquiring ill-gotten wealth is a criminal act2 - Republic Act No. 1379: Act Declaring Forfeiture of Ill-Gotten Wealth of Public Officers and Employees - Illicit Enrichment, UNCAC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSIS-Meralco_bribery_case

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/man/2006/01/28/news/sc.okays.confiscation.of.ill.gotten.wealth.of .retired.general.html Saturday, January 28, 2006 - SC okays confiscation of ill-gotten wealth of retired general http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=127465

"The soundness of this reasoning becomes even more obvious when we consider that the respondent in such forfeiture proceedings is a public officer or employee and the violation of RA (Republic Act) 1379 was committed during the respondent officer's incumbency, this is in line with the purpose behind the creation of the Sandiganbayan as an anti-graft court - to address the urgent problem of dishonesty in public service. Republic Act No. 1379 authorizes the State to seek the forfeiture of illgotten wealth, with forfeiture as the only penalty, against all respondents. The law criminalized the mere acquisition of all their ill-gotten wealth, with dire imprisonment and disbarment, plus perpetual disqualification from office, to prevent the predators-respondents from continuing their evils. In this connection, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which was ratified by the Philippine Senate on 06 November 2006, provides: Article 20 -Illicit Enrichment - Subject to its constitution and the fundamental principles of its legal system, each State Party shall consider adopting such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offense, when committed intentionally, illicit enrichment, that is, a significant increase in the assets of a public official that he or she cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her lawful income. Clearly, because of said Senate ratification, an amendment of Republic Act No. 1379 to implement Article 20 of the UNCAC is necessary. Conviction under this proposed amendment will be infinitely easier than the Anti-Plunder Law and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act because of the prima facie presumption that the property was unlawfully acquired if it was acquired by a public officer or employee during his incumbency in an amount which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property. Thus, the prosecution needs only to prove that the property was acquired during the incumbency of the public official and that the value of the said property is manifestly more than the lawful income of the said public official. Unlike in plunder, there is no need to prove the criminal acts committed and the link to the amassed ill-gotten wealth. Speedy recourse It may be argued that said presumption will be violative of the accuseds right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, no serious challenge can be made as the Supreme Court itself upheld the validity of such presumption in the case of Ong vs. Sandiganbayan, 470 SCRA 7 (2005), wherein the court stated that under the principle of presumption of evidence, it

is merely required of the State to establish a prima facie case, after which the burden of proof shifts to the accused.

IN SUM, petitioner begs leave of this Court of last resort, to lend ears to his desperate plea: this case transcends the person of Macasaet, it is about us, your children and their offsprings. This case is a dire OMEN of what our Lady of Fatima foretold in 1918, and repeated to Judge Floro, on March 13, 2008. The Peace of Christ. Amen
RELIEF IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that the instant Verified Manifestation with Motions - to Reconsider, Re-Open and For New Trial & Prayer For Leave of Court With Tender of Payment of Docket Fees
-

be duly NOTED, ADMITTED, GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED.

Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letter-affidavitcomplaint, this 29th day of August, 2008, at Malolos City, BULACAN. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Petitioner-in-Intervention, on behalf of himself, by himself and as litigant, 123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 3000 BULACAN, Tel /# (044) 662-82-03; [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300;
ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV].

NOTICE TO: Atty. Ma. Luisa Villarama / Atty. Felipa Anama, The Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila, Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court, immediately upon receipt hereof. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION / AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S. I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, depose/say, that: I am the petitioner-in-intervention in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read the initial complaint duly filed in this case, and all the contents / allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records. I certify that on September , 2008, I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this case In the matter of the column Business Circuit, of Amado Macasaet in the September 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2007 issues of Malaya A.M. NO. A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC, upon all parties herein, personally, thru the S.C. Public Information Office and PHILJA, as evidenced by the hereunder rubber stamp receipt, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Revised Rules of Court.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this ___ day of September, 2008, here at Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007.
DOC. NO. ____, PAGE NO. _____, BOOK NO. 76, SERIES OF 2008.

BERNAR D. FAJARDO
Notary Public, Until Jan.31, 2009, PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,08, Atty.s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,08 Malolos City, Bulacan.

COPY FURNISHED: (By Personal Service): All parties and Mme. Justice Carolina Grio-Aquino, Chairperson, 59-D Tuason St., Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, M.M., Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, Member, and 373 Matienza St., San Miguel, Manila, M.M., Mr. Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr, Member, Vice-Chancellor, PHILJA, Supreme Court, Manila, M.M. Thru PHILJA, S.C., Manila, and

The S.C. Public Information Office.