Btw, like DJB said, it wasn't Macasaet who named Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago, since mga blind items ang articles ni Macasaet, kundi yung Newsbreak, which did it's own investigating and has it's own sets of sources.
Here's Dean Bocobo's take:
Media in Focus with Cheche Lazaro interviewed Marites Vitug of Newsbreak, and lawyers Ed Lacierda and Marichu Lambino last week. Something I forgot about already was brought up by Atty. Lambino. It's to do with that infamous circular issued by then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. forbidding the disclosure of the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of a Supreme Court Justice. Since SALs are public documents, the exemption is baseless and unconstitutional. It's immoral and self-serving.
Moreover, the Chief Justice Reynato Puno's close classmate in law school, Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares Santiago, is currently embroiled in an alleged case of bribery or attempted bribery that has been investigated and reported upon by Newsbreak Magazine. And Malaya editor, Jake Macasaet has been given a chilling "show cause" order why he ought not to be cited for indirect contempt of the Supreme Court, by his recent writings on the incident, but saying it was one of the relatively few Lady Justices. Though he did not name any specific Justice, nor did he even name the Supreme Court in his assailed editorials. (Ellen Tordesillas reports).
Members of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, are all called justices.
In short, what happened is that Newsbreak got a tip that a staff member of Justice Ynares-Santiago was allegedly fired last March after she inadvertently opened a neatly gift-wrapped package intended for her boss, thinking it contained perishables. Surprise, surprise, the package reportedly contained about P10 million in cash. This incident apparently occurred just before Justice Ynares-Santiago issued an important decision in the Piatco case. Now with the whole thing turned into a public brouhaha, an important dilemma has arisen and is worth examining in some detail.
There is a fog that must be dispelled in the public’s mind about the Supreme Court–Marichu said it herself and struggled with the conundrum–the Supremes must not be above the law, but where does one appeal as simple a thing as the refusal to show a guest logbook, which any visitor to the Court signs and accesses. She tells Cheche we must appeal to their reasonableness. You realize of course that this cannot maintain the integrity of our conceptions of justice and Rule of Law. There must be a functional, institutional check and balance to the Supreme Court.
MORE: May inconsistency sa istorya ni Delis at ng SC spokesperson:
A former SC employee who worked in Santiago’s office, Daisy Cecilia Munoz-Delis, allegedly opened one of five boxes intended for Santiago and found cash inside it.
Delis insisted she does not know anything about the alleged bribery attempt that appeared in Macasaet’s columns.
Delis faced off with Macasaet for the first time after she came out with an affidavit belying the allegations. She further insisted she was not fired after witnessing the alleged bribery attempt. She said she voluntarily resigned.
According to Supreme Court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez, Delis was terminated after she incurred huge overseas telephone bills. The termination took place a few years short of her retirement from office.
"I’m hurt (that) I’m being dragged to this mess. It (bribery) never occurred," she told reporters before the start of the hearing.
Asked why she resigned when she was nearing her retirement age, she said it was "for personal reasons."
So which is it? you were not fired, but you resigned after witnessing the bribery attempt? and i don't buy the telephone bills excuse bullshit.