In granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Special Ethics Prosecutor Bruce A. Bradley, the court said there was no need for a full hearing, as requested by Govendo, to explain the context surrounding his statements.
“No amount of context demonstrating how bad [Roger] Castillo is, how fearful his family was for him, or how…Govendo’s futile attempts in the past to force Castillo to follow court orders excuse threatening, intimidating, and racially derogatory language,” the ruling stated.
“Additionally, nothing can excuse…Govendo’s choice of words in the two adoption cases,” the ruling further stated.
The judge was quoted as telling a petitioner in an adoption case: “Are there any other kids in the Philippines that you would like to adopt?… No more? You sure?… Oh come on. Just about every Filipino here wants to adopt some relative right?”
This, according to the high court, in conjunction with the Castillo statement “demonstrated a pattern of improper racial remarks….”
The Supreme Court also noted that according to a Chamorro-English dictionary, the word “muchacho/muchacha” means lad, house-boy/girl, servant, maid.
“Threatening a party with criminal proceedings, deportation, and using racially derogatory language such as ‘Adios muchacho’ is inappropriate,” the Supreme Court ruled.
“Adios muchaho,” however, is often used by statesiders to mean “goodbye buddy.”
“We do not find that Judge Govendo acted because he is a racist, and neither the recommendation nor the prosecutor made such an argument. Judge Govendo’s choice of words, however, creates the appearance of a pattern of racial bias, and this is unacceptable,” the Supreme Court further ruled.
Govendo, it added, “has difficulty controlling his temper.”
In a footnote, the court stated: “We take judicial notice that Judge Govendo repeatedly raised his voice at Chief Justice Demapan during the hearing for this motion, and at times would speak over the chief justice.”
It was Associate Judge Ramona V. Manglona who, on Nov. 14, 2009, wrote a letter to the Supreme Court, alleging that Govendo violated the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct Canon.
In an e-mail to the Variety yesterday, Govendo said: “I am terribly disappointed in the Supreme Court granting the motion for summary judgment. I argued very strongly that in matters like these, if a judge wants a public hearing, he should get it. I felt it was important to argue the context in which my statements were made and that the context should be taken into consideration before a finding of violation of ethics was made. Regrettably, that was not the decision.”
He added, “On Oct. 15 there will be a mitigation hearing in which I can argue to the court about what my sanctions, if any, will be. I look forward to finally having a chance to testify about this entire matter and advising the court about why I said what I said and some of the more serious violations committed by judges in other jurisdictions when it comes to judicial misconduct.”
