“I apologize to any Filipino or Chamorro [offended by the remark]. I had no idea that [‘muchacho’] could be interpreted as a derogatory, disparaging remark,” Govendo told the Supreme Court which held a hearing to determine the sanctions that could be imposed on him.
“Muchacho” is a Spanish word that means “servant” or “young man.”
Stateside Americans, however, use the phrase “adios muchacho” to mean “goodbye buddy.”
The court earlier ruled that Govendo violated judicial rules and canons for his courtroom remarks that were “racially derogatory.”
Two of the witnesses called by Govendo to the stand described him as a “good judge” and not a racist.
Presiding Judge Robert C. Naraja, whose father was Filipino, said Govendo is a “decent person who speaks from his heart.”
Naraja said Govendo may not be “politically correct,” but he “thinks outside the box and I appreciate that.”
Naraja also noted that the family court under Govendo received a national award recently.
Asked by Govendo what Naraja could recommend to the Supreme Court, the presiding judge said: “All I ask is that they give you utmost consideration and leniency.”
Noting the “very stressful” nature of a judge’s job, Associate Justice Alexandro C. Castro asked Naraja, “If we tell you to reassign him, do you see any problem with that?”
“I don’t see any problem,” Naraja said. He noted, however, that Govendo was “very enthusiastic” in handling family court cases.
Govendo’s former clerk Myrna Santos, who worked for the local judiciary from 1984 to 2005, said she didn’t think that the judge was being racially insensitive when he made the “adios muchacho” remark in open court.
Santos, who was born in the Philippines, recalled that she later told the judge that some Filipinos considered “muchacho” a “putdown.”
“And what was my reaction,” the judge asked.
“You said, ‘I didn’t mean to insult him,’ ” she replied.
“I was surprised,” Govendo said.
“Yes,” Santos said.
“Have you observed me as being racially insensitive?” the judge asked.
“No,” she said. “Race was never an issue.”
Santos said she was not being paid to testify and that “I still believe you’re a good judge.”
Govendo also called his accuser, Judge Ramona V. Manglona, to the witness stand.
He noted that both of them were nominated, confirmed and sworn in together in 2003.
“Do you consider me a colleague?” Govendo asked.
“Yes,” Manglona replied.
When Govendo started discussing the original complaint filed against him by Manglona, Special Prosecutor Bruce A. Bradley objected, saying that the judge’s line of questioning was irrelevant.
“I want to go into what she’s complaining about,” Govendo told the justices.
Justice Pro Tem Edward Manibusan overruled Bradley’s objection.
Govendo then asked Manglona, “Were you upset by the ‘adios muchacho’ remark?”
Manglona said she was upset by Govendo’s “threatening” to personally see to it that the then-defendant would be deported.
“I didn’t do anything to get him deported, right?” he asked.
“The prosecutor told me you didn’t,” she replied.
Asked if she considered “adios muchacho” racially derogatory, Manglona said, “I didn’t personally take it to be [that].”
“Why didn’t you come to me as your colleague to discuss your concern?” he asked.
Manglona said she found his remarks “so egregious” that she feared the judiciary might be “tainted.”
She said the Judicial Canon “compelled” her to file an official complaint with the chief justice.
The canon, Govendo noted, “that doesn’t apply to us.”
“Have you heard bad things about me?” he asked Manglona.
“I know some individuals were unhappy, but about which I have no personal knowledge.”
“Did you see the victim?” Govendo asked, referring to common-law wife of the convicted stalker.
“She was so frightful she didn’t appear in the hearing.”
“She was scared to death wasn’t she?
“Yes.”
When Govendo reminded her that even retired Judge Richard Benson, who investigated her complaints, believed that the matter could have been handled “in house,” Manglona said, “I was hoping the investigation would run its course. I’m not in error. I want others to see that we won’t tolerate it.”
She added, “I do respect Judge Govendo. I had to do a difficult thing, reporting on my colleague.”
Manglona said all she wanted was for the “integrity of the judicial process” to be upheld.
In his opening and closing arguments, Special Prosecutor Bradley said Govendo, until the formal hearing, had “not shown contrition” and remained “defiant.”
“When will this be stopped?” Bradley asked.
He recommended suspension and a further investigation of Govendo’s other hearings, claiming that what was before the court was only “the tip of an iceberg.”
But Govendo said he was declared “innocent until charged — start the punishment.”
He vowed to propose changes to the judicial rules to ensure that a judge accused of wrongdoing would have his day in court.
“You have to givea judge due process. The public is watching. If they don’t see a judge getting due process what do they think they’ll get when they come to the court?”
He said there had been no other complaints against him for being racially insensitive.
In a multi-ethnic community, he added, “it is absolutely incorrect to be branded racially insensitive just because you don’t walk the political correctness tightrope.”
He said he had to use “strong language” because he feared for the victim’s life.
He cited another domestic violence case in which the victim was assaulted with a machete and then fatally shot by her former husband — in front of her daughter.
“This is the fear I’ve to live with. I worry about it,” Govendo said.
“It’s easy for Mr. Bradley to say, ‘No, no; you’ve got to maintain decorum.’ But in the family court, your patience is tried. I was frustrated with [the then-defendant],” who had defied his previous order.
“I didn’t want to say ‘muchacho.’ I wanted to say a seven-letter English word, but I bit my tongue. Maybe I should have said that word instead, at least this would not be a racially sensitive case. I promise to watch my language next time. I will try to be more careful.”
Govendo noted that his case will be two years old next month.
“I was shocked that a colleague would accuse me in public. I wanted to clear the air. I’m hoping to have collegial relations with Judge Manglona. This is [all in the] past for us now.”
He said he worried about how the case affected his wife.
“But the feedback from the public has been positive. If I were a bad judge, a loose cannon, then why do many people think I’m a good judge?” he asked.
“Now I’m stuck with this in my record. Not a day has gone by that I don’t think about it.”
But Govendo said he will not resign.
“70 percent of the electorate voted to retained me. I’m not stepping down.”
The judge said he was “tempted” to agree to a reassignment, which he described as a “judicial vacation.”
“But I’ve made a commitment. I’ve tried my best to raise awareness about domestic violence. Nobody is fighting to become the family court judge. I feel I’ve been good at it. I feel it’ll be detrimental to the public [if I’m reassigned], but if you think I’m burned out then that is one of the alternatives,” Govendo told the justices.
“I think I’ve been punished enough.”
He said a public reprimand is in order, but “I don’t want to be stuck with fees and costs. This matter went on for so long because the court prolonged it.”
He also admitted scolding a man who had sexual relations with a minor.
“Now if a judge can’t scold a criminal who had sex with a 14-year-old then put it in the rules.”
Govendo, however, believes that judges can and must express “the outrage of the community — that’s part of our job.”
The high court panel, which included Guam Superior Court Vernon P. Perez, recessed at noontime.
Justice Castro said they would listen to the audio recordings of three cases presided over by Govendo and later issue a written order.
Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan recused himself from the proceedings as requested by Govendo in a motion filed in court.
Govendo was the judge in a separate case that involved Demapan’s brother.
//
