View full case

MAMASAW SULTAN ALI v. BAGUINDA-ALI PACALNA

FACTS:

Former Judge Baguinda-Ali A. Pacalna filed a Petition for judicial clemency, seeking to rejoin the judiciary after being found administratively liable in a previous case. In the said case, he was found guilty of dishonesty, serious misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He was ordered to pay a fine of P20,000.00. Another administrative complaint was filed against him, resulting in his suspension and the withholding of his salary. He later resigned while being investigated in the second case. Respondent filed his application for a judicial position and sought clemency, claiming remorse and promising not to repeat his previous acts. However, he did not provide any evidence or relevant circumstances to support his plea for clemency. Given the gravity of his transgressions, the Court denied his petition for judicial clemency.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not to grant the Petition for Judicial Clemency filed by respondent Baguinda-Ali A. Pacalna.

  2. Whether or not there is proof of remorse and reformation on the part of the respondent.

RULING:

  1. The Petition for Judicial Clemency filed by respondent Baguinda-Ali A. Pacalna is DENIED for lack of merit. There is no proof of remorse and reformation on the part of the respondent to justify granting the request for clemency.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Judges are expected to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety in all activities, and perform their official duties honestly and diligently. (Code of Judicial Conduct)

  • Guidelines for requests for judicial clemency include proof of remorse and reformation, sufficient time elapsed from the imposition of the penalty, the age of the person asking for clemency, a showing of promise, and other relevant factors and circumstances. (A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC)

  • Misconduct and gross ignorance of the law are grounds for administrative liability. (Decision dated September 25, 2007)

  • Fabricating an order and taking custody of an accused without proper authority constitute dishonesty and misuse of authority. (Decision dated September 25, 2007 and A.M. No. MTJ-11-1791)