Govendo, in his motions for reconsideration and disqualification, argued that Demapan “cannot act without bias and prejudice” toward the judge who was recently found by the Supreme Court in violation of Canons of Judicial Conduct and the Commonwealth Rules of Judicial Disciplinary Procedures.
In his order of recusal, Demapan declared: “Despite my firm belief that my disqualification is not warranted, I will voluntarily recuse myself from any further participation in these proceedings.”
He added, “As chief justice I am entrusted to not only interpret the law, but also to uphold the ideals and aspirations embodied in the legal process. Among the most important of these principles is maintaining the public’s confidence in the judiciary and judicial process. Such confidence becomes vulnerable when, as here, one member of the judiciary challenges the integrity of another judicial officer. Faced with this reality, I elect to proceed with an abundance of caution. It is thus out of my respect for the judicial process and desire to not in any way jeopardize the public’s confidence in the judiciary, that I will recuse myself.”
Demapan said Govendo’s allegations are “patently false.”
According to Demapan, he “never attended any portion of [my brother] Juan S. Demapan’s trial. Aside from the potentially perjurious and libelous nature of [Govendo’s] declaration, I find it particularly worrisome that [he] would rest such a serious allegation on such vague and unsubstantiated foundations.”
Govendo also asserted in his affidavit that Demapan “somehow cannot act without bias or prejudice because of an unrelated disciplinary matter involving the judge and [Demapan’s other] brother, Roman S. Demapan.”
“Judge Govendo alleges no facts sufficient to warrant automatic disqualification under commonwealth law.
Instead, [Govendo] asserts this tenuous link to question my ability to act impartially in the present case,” Chief Justice Demapan said.
He added, “Curiously, while the information underlying this allegation was known by Judge Govendo long before [the Supreme Court’s] summary disposition order was entered, he waited until after we entered our decision before moving for my disqualification. At the very least, this raises serious questions about timeliness of Judge Govendo’s challenge.”
The chief justice said the Supreme Court had previously held that “a motion to disqualify a judge filed after a summary judgment hearing is untimely.”
The “disqualification motions are routinely disallowed when filed for tactical reasons; a motion to disqualify a judge cannot be viewed as an additional arrow in the quiver of advocates in the face of [anticipated] adverse rulings,” the chief justice said.
He added, “Aside from potential procedural infirmities, I believe any allegations of bias are simply unwarranted. I harbor no bias or ill-will toward Judge Govendo, have no agenda in the present case other than fulfilling my duties as chief justice and considering this matter in a fair and impartial manner. I would have recused myself from this case at the outset if I was aware of any conflict.”
The Supreme Court has set a hearing for Oct. 15 to determine the sanctions to be imposed on Govendo.
