More On Ja Hoon Ku's Case

HOW MORE JUDGMENTAL

THEY CAN GET?

More on Ja Hoon Ku’s Case

 

AGAIN, to make his readers believe that there are anomalies and corruptions happening in the Church today, Antonio Ebanghelista grab the “fresh from the press” news about Judge Gallegos, the RTC Judge in Manila the gave a writ of Amparo to Ja Hoon Ku and now facing an administrative case, to resurface the issue regarding Ja Hoon Ku’s case. After posting a screenshot of the said news article, this is what he said:

“So now, if the Judge that Bro. Glicerio B. Santos Jr. used to favor Mr. Ja Hoon Ku is now in trouble according to the news: “The Supreme Court saw the defiance of Gallegos as disrespecting an order of the country’s highest court. “A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court’s lawful order and directive,” the high court said. “Judge Gallegos should know that judges must respect the orders and decisions of higher tribunals, especially the Supreme Court from which all other courts take their bearings,” it added.The high tribunal continued, “When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of the law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary itself.’” [Antonio Ebangelista, “The continuing Saga of Bro. Glicerio B. Santos Jr. and Mr. Ja Hoon Ku” June 24, 2015]

For Antonio Ebanghelista, this re-enforce his allegation which he re-stated in his latest article regarding this issue:

“Then one day, the whole world was startled when we saw on TV the news about JA HOON KU who was arrested for embezzling $200 Million in Korea. But surprisingly he was suddenly released by the swift order of Sec. Pacquito Ochoa and was given to the custody of Bro. Glicerio B. Santos Jr. This act of Bro. Glicerio B. Santos Jr. of FLEXING THE ORGANIZATIONAL MUSCLE OF THE CHURCH IN INFLUENCING GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO OBEY HIS ORDERS AT THE EXPENSE OF CHURCH’ REPUTATION, is truly unbecoming of a Minister. HE NOT ONLY PUT THE NAME OF THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO IN A BAD LIGHT, FEEDING A NEGATIVE NEWS FRENZY FOR QUITE SOMETIME FOR HARBORING A CRIMINAL. But surprisingly, Malacañang kept quite about it, then one by one, the news buzz died down…” [Antonio Ebangelista, “The continuing Saga of Bro. Glicerio B. Santos Jr. and Mr. Ja Hoon Ku” June 24, 2015]

Antonio Ebanghelista claimed that because the Church became the caretaker of Ja Hoon Ku as he waits the final decision of the Supreme Court regarding his case, the Church  (1) flexed her organizational muscle TO INFLUENCED GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS; and (2) that the Iglesia Ni Cristo was in a bad light for “HARBORING A CRIMINAL.” He further claim that Ja Hoon Ku is still hiding from the law or government agents still looking for him. This is what he said:

“But then again, we could be all wrong and Mr. Pristine could be right, because for all we know, he might be actually there during the dedication of the house of worship in South Korea, and ofcourse we will take his word for it, he knows all these sensitive information inside the church, while the rest of the Church knows nothing. He knows WHERE JA HOON KU IS WHEN WHEN OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENTS WERE STILL LOOKING FOR HIM. Just Brilliant!” [Antonio Ebangelista, “The continuing Saga of Bro. Glicerio B. Santos Jr. and Mr. Ja Hoon Ku” June 24, 2015]

Thhus, in his latest article entitled “The continuing Saga of Bro. Glicerio B. Santos Jr. and Mr. Ja Hoon Ku” (June 24, 2015), Antonio Ebanghelista is claiming that:

(1)  The Church Administration committed the offense of “harboring a criminal” when the Church became the caretaker of Ja Hoon Ku while waiting for the decision of the Supreme Court;

(2) The Church Administration “flexed her organizational muscle to INFLUENCED government officials;

(3) Judge Gallegos is the government official that the Church Administration influenced to get the custody of Ja Hoon Ku; and

(4) Ja Hoon Ku is still hiding from the authorities.

Let us see if he is really telling the truth.

Is your truth scoreboard ready?

(1) Did the Church Administration committed the offense of “harboring a criminal” when the Church became the caretaker of Ja Hoon Ku while waiting for the decision of the Supreme Court?

“Harboring a criminal” is a criminal offense. When a person HIDES another person wanted by the law that person committed the offense of “harboring a criminal”:

“…the term used when a person HIDES another person wanted by the law.” [Source: http://thelawdictionary.org/harboring-a-criminal/]

Harboring a criminal is “hiding a criminal.” However, is there a lawful instance that a custody of a “person” accused of a crime be ganted to an individual or an organization?

“The lower court last Jan. 28 ordered Ku’s release to the Philippine National Red Cross (PRC) chair Richard Gordon and for the PNP to extend protection to Ku’s family…” [SOURCE: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/98476/sc-stops-transfer-of-korean-fugitive/]

On January 28, the lower court ordered the Burueau of Immigration to transfer the cutody of Ja Hoon Ku to Richard Gordon and the Philippine National Red Cross. Take note that although the Supreme Court gave a TRO (Temporary restraining Order) against this decision of the lower court, but it proves that the court and even the executive branch of the government has authority to give to an individual or an organization the “custody of an accused person” waiting for his appeal to be resolved.

In this decision of the lower court ordering to give the custody of Ja Hoon Ku to Richarcd Gordon and the Philippine National Red Cross proves that when a court of law or the executive branch of the government gave the custody to an individual or organization is not a criminal offense but a lawful act, thus, this is not an offense of “harboring a criminal.”

“But the Supreme Cort reprimanded Judge Gallegos?” The news tells us that Supreme Court reprimanded Judge Gallegos for not respecting the decision of the Supreme Court:

“On January 29, 2014, Gallegos issued a second order directing the transfer and protection of Ku to the PNP. Immigration chief Siegfred Mison challenged the RTC order before the Supreme Court, which issued a temporary restraining order, stopping Gallegos from further proceeding with the case and directing the BI to retain custody of Ku.

“Despite the SC order, Gallegos on February 28, 2014, denied a motion from Mison to dismiss his order for the transfer and protection of Ku to the PNP. In its resolution, the SC said Gallegos knowingly disregarded the Court’s directive regarding the case.”

Source: www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/509698/news/nation/sc-orders-admin-charges-vs-judge-who-granted-korean-fugitive-s-amparo-bid

The Supreme Court reprimanded Judge Gallegos not because he has no authority to give the custody of Ja Hoon Ku to Richard Gordon and the Philippine National Red Cross, or to PNP, but because he disregarded the Supreme Court order (the SC Temporary Restraining Order on his order to transfer the custody of Ja Hoon Ku from Bureau of Immigration to Philippine National Police).

Thus, “harboring a criminal” is a criminal offense, meaning hiding a criminal or someone running from the law or from the authorities. However, the judicial and executive branches of the government have authority to give to an individual or organization the custody of an individual accused of a crime as he waits the decision of the court or the executive branch. Now, let us see the case of Ja Hoon Ku:

“Three days before Gallegos had dismissed Mison’s motion to dismiss, or on February 25, 2014, Ku had filed an appeal memorandum on his deportation before the Office of the President, which granted Ku’s provisional liberty a month later, in March 2014.

“His temporary liberty was only until August 31, 2014 or until his appeal has been resolved, whichever comes first, the OP said.”

Source: www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/509698/news/nation/sc-orders-admin-charges-vs-judge-who-granted-korean-fugitive-s-amparo-bid

Indeed, even the executive branch has authority to “grant provisional liberty” but this “temporary liberty” is limited or until the appeal of one accused has been solved. In the case of Ja Hoon Ku, the Executive branch gave him a “temporary liberty” up to August 31, 2014 or until his appeal has been resolved. Because Ja Hoon Ku is a member of the Church, that’s why the Executive branch when Ja was given a “provisional liberty” as he waits the decision of the higher court regarding his case, the government appointed the Church as his caretaker until his appeal has been resolved:

“Ja, a former plant manager of Phildip Korea Co. Ltd., became a business partner of San Jose Builders, Inc. in the Philippines. He was arrested by the Bureau of Immigration (BI) but was later released prior to his deportation to his home country. The report said Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa issued an order to grant Ja temporary liberty as he awaits the court's ruling on his appeal for the deportation case. Ja, who converted to Iglesia Ni Cristo from being a Korean Christian Church member, was reportedly entrusted to his co-INC members.”

[SOURCE: ttp://m.philstar.com/headlines/show/2bd771eeeb8bd1a9fa05cff1a003127d]

Thus, there is no anomaly when the government entrusted Ja Hoon Ku to the Church or when his custody was given to the Church. If so, then it is wrong to say that the Church committed the offense of “harboring a criminal.” It was the government who gave the custody of Ja to the Church, and the Church did not hide Ja from the law, but the appointed caretaker as Ja Hoon Ku waits the final decision of the Supreme Court. The Church turn over Ja after the Supreme made it’s final decision on his case.

Therefore, hastily concluding that the Church committed the offense of “harboring a criminal” when the custody of Ja Hoon Ku was given to her by the government as he waits the decision of the higher court is based not on the merit of facts, but of being “judgmental.” It the light of this fact, there are no difference between Antonio Ebanghelista and the people behind him with the enemies of our faith.

(2) Did the Church Administration “flexed her organizational muscle to INFLUENCED government officials”?

We have seen that the court as well as the Executive branch has the authority to grant “temporary” or “provisional” liberty and to appoint an individual or organization as caretaker of someone waiting for his appeal to be resolved. What else the law provided the Executive branch?

“After being arrested by the immigration authorities, Ja was supposed to be exiled to Korea.

“The CA quoted Section 10 of the Administrative Code of 1987, Book III, stating the president's power to countermand decisions of the Board of Commissioners of the BI upon dismissing Ja’s plea.”

[SOURCE:http://m.philstar.com/headlines/show/2bd771eeeb8bd1a9fa05cff1a003127d]

The President of the Philippines or the Executive branch of the government HAS THE POWER TO COUNTERMAND OR REVERSE THE DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION. This is provided by the Law (Section 10 of the Administrative Code of 1987, Book III). Thus, the decisions of BI to summarily deported Ja Hoon Ku and dismissing Ja’s plea can be countermand by the Office of the President. So the Office of the President has the power not only to give “temporary” or “provisional” liberty and to give the custody to an individual or organization of someone waiting his appeal to be resolved, but also to dismiss or countermand the decisions of the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration.

Now let us go back to Ja Hoon Ku’s case. Is it true that the Church Administration “flexed her organizational muscle to INFLUENCED government officials”? Let us see what really happened:

“The CA quoted Section 10 of the Administrative Code of 1987, Book III, stating the president's power to countermand decisions of the Board of Commissioners of the BI upon dismissing Ja’s plea.

“In this case, the summary deportation order in question has become final and executory, since it was not countermanded by the president within 30 days from promulgation," the CA said.

“CA said that the summary deportation order was issued on Jan. 16, 2014, while the order denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration was issued on Jan. 23, 2014.

"There was no order by the president countermanding or reversing said orders within the 30-day period...”

[SOURCE: http://m.philstar.com/headlines/show/2bd771eeeb8bd1a9fa05cff1a003127d]

Antonio Ebanghelista is accusing the Church Administration of influencing Malacanan regarding Ja’s case. If the Office of the President will countermand the decisions of the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration about Ja’s case no one can contest or question that because the Law provides the President the power to do so (Section 10 of the Administrative Code of 1987, Book III). But, the President did not countermand or reverse the decision of the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of Immigration and instead:

“Three days before Gallegos had dismissed Mison’s motion to dismiss, or on February 25, 2014, Ku had filed an appeal memorandum on his deportation before the Office of the President, which granted Ku’s provisional liberty a month later, in March 2014.

“His temporary liberty was only until August 31, 2014 or until his appeal has been resolved, whichever comes first, the OP said.”

Source: www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/509698/news/nation/sc-orders-admin-charges-vs-judge-who-granted-korean-fugitive-s-amparo-bid

                         

Take note that no “flexing of Church’s organizational muscle to INFLUENCED government officials” happened. All legalities were followed. It was Ja Hoon Ku who filed an appeal memorandum on his deportation before the Office of the President on February 25, 2015. And the Office of the President made a decision on Ja Hoon Ku’s case because Ja filed an appeal memorandum. Then, one month later, March of 2014, instead of countermanding the decisions of the Board of Commssioners of the Bureau of Immigration, the Office of the President granted Ku’s “provisional liberty” which was only until August 31, 2014 or until his appeal has been resolved, which ever comes first. After this, the Office of the President decided to entrust Ja with the Church until the Supreme Court made a decision regarding his case:

“Ja, a former plant manager of Phildip Korea Co. Ltd., became a business partner of San Jose Builders, Inc. in the Philippines. He was arrested by the Bureau of Immigration (BI) but was later released prior to his deportation to his home country. The report said Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa issued an order to grant Ja temporary liberty as he awaits the court's ruling on his appeal for the deportation case. Ja, who converted to Iglesia Ni Cristo from being a Korean Christian Church member, was reportedly entrusted to his co-INC members.”

[SOURCE: philstar.com/headlines/show/2bd771eeeb8bd1a9fa05cff1a003127d]

The currents news today that the Supreme Court decided against the case of Ja Hoon Ku also refute Antonio Ebanghelista’s claim that the Church Administration “flexed her organizational muscle to INFLUENCED government officials.”

(3) Is Judge Gallegos the government official or one of the government officials that the Church Administration influenced to get the custody of Ja Hoon Ku?

In the first article of Antonio Ebanghelista about Ja Hoon Ku’s case [“THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS THE PROOF OF BURDEN” April 30, 2015], nowhere he mentioned that Judge Gallegos is the government official or one of the government officials that the Church Administration influenced to get the custody of Ja Hoon Ku. He did not even mentioned Judge Gallegos. But, because of the current news, he “connected” Judge Gallegos with Brother Glicerio B. Santos, Jr. as the one used by the latter to favor Ja Hoon Ku:

“So now, if the Judge that Bro. Glicerio B. Santos Jr. used to favor Mr. Ja Hoon Ku is now in trouble according to the news: “The Supreme Court saw the defiance of Gallegos as disrespecting an order of the country’s highest court. “A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court’s lawful order and directive,” the high court said. “Judge Gallegos should know that judges must respect the orders and decisions of higher tribunals, especially the Supreme Court from which all other courts take their bearings,” it added.The high tribunal continued, “When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of the law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary itself.’” [Antonio Ebangelista, “The continuing Saga of Bro. Glicerio B. Santos Jr. and Mr. Ja Hoon Ku” June 24, 2015]

To Honorable Gallegos, sir, this statement of Antonio Ebanghelista against you is truly “libelous.” He said, ““So now, if the Judge that Bro. Glicerio B. Santos Jr. used to favor Mr. Ja Hoon Ku..” What’s the link? Where is the connection? This statement is truly based only on opinion, a mere accusation, a very libelous statement against Judge Gallegos. To see the truth, let us see what really happened:

On 16 January 2014, he was arrested by Bureau of Immigration (BI) because of a letter of request sent to them by the South Korean embassy:

“Records showed the Korean Embassy wrote the BI to arrest and deport Ja for alleged arbitrary spending of the reserve funds of Seoul-based Phildip Korea Co, Ltd. Upon finding that Ja was a ‘risk to public interest,’ the BI charged him with violating Section 69 of Republic Act 2711 or the Revised Administrative Code as his visa had already expired.”

[SOURCE: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/100715/sc-stops-release-of-wanted-south-korean/]

Thus, let us make it clear that Brother Ja Hoon Ku was not a convicted criminal in South Korea. The South Korean Embassy wrote the Bureau of Immigration (BI) to arrest Ja “for ALLEGED arbitrary spending of the reserve funds of Seoul-based Phildip Korea Co, Ltd.” Thus, the case was filed against Ja when he was in the Philippines. However, the BI arrested and charged him “with violating section 69 of RA 2711” or in other words, he was arrested because his visa had already expired. The BI commissioner then immediately issued a warrant for Ja’s immediate deportation to South Korea (Ja was detained at the BI detention center in Bicutan, Taguig):

“BI Commissioner Siegfred Mison then issued a warrant for his immediate deportation to South Korea. Ja was arrested on January 16 and detained at the BI detention center in Bicutan, Taguig City.”

[SOURCE: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/100715/sc-stops-release-of-wanted-south-korean/]

Because of this, the following day after his arrest on 16 January 2014, Ja asked the Manila court to issue a “writ of amparo” and a temporary protection order against the BI:

“The following day, Ja asked the Manila court to issue a writ of amparo and temporary protection order against the BI…”

[SOURCE: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/100715/sc-stops-release-of-wanted-south-korean/]

The lower court decided in favor of Ja:

“The following day, Ja asked the Manila court to issue a writ of amparo and temporary protection order against the BI. Gallegos heard the petition on the same day and ruled in the Korean’s favor.” [SOURCE: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/100715/sc-stops-release-of-wanted-south-korean/]

On January 28, the lower court ordered the Bi to transfer the cutody of Ja Hoon Ku to Richard Gordon and the Philippine National Red Cross:

“The lower court last Jan. 28 ordered Ku’s release to the Philippine National Red Cross (PRC) chair Richard Gordon and for the PNP to extend protection to Ku’s family…” [SOURCE: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/98476/sc-stops-transfer-of-korean-fugitive/]

On the following day, 29 January 2014, the lower court again ordered the BI to release Ja to Philippine National Police (PNP). In response, the BI took the case to the high court, which issued on February 4 a temporary restraining order (TRO):

“Last Feb. 4, the high court already issued a restraining order against Gallegos and ruled that Ja Hoon Ku should stay under the Bureau of Immigration’s custody.” [SOURCE: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/100715/sc-stops-release-of-wanted-south-korean/]

The high court issued a TRO to lower court’s order “until further order”:

"The Court issued a TRO enjoining the enforcement of the two orders of the RTC until further orders. It also directed the BI to retain custody of the private respondent Ja Hoon Ku," said SC Public Information Office chief and spokesman Theodore Te in a media briefing.”

[SOURCE: www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/347113/news/metromanila/sc-stops-korean-national-s-transfer-to-pnp]

So, where is the link between Ka Jun and Judge Gallegos? What’s the connection? Where is the proof? Where is the evidence? Truly this statement of Antonio Ebanghelista based only on opinion, a mere accusation, a very libelous statement against Judge Gallegos: “So now, if the Judge that Bro. Glicerio B. Santos Jr. used to favor Mr. Ja Hoon Ku…”

                                                   

(4) Is Ja Hoon Ku still hiding from the authorities and government agents still looking for him?

                       

What is Antonio Ebanghelista’s evidence in saying that Ja Hoon Ku is still hiding from the law? This is what he further stated:

                                 

“But then again, we could be all wrong and Mr. Pristine could be right, because for all we know, he might be actually there during the dedication of the house of worship in South Korea, and ofcourse we will take his word for it, he knows all these sensitive information inside the church, while the rest of the Church knows nothing. He knows WHERE JA HOON KU IS WHEN WHEN OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENTS WERE STILL LOOKING FOR HIM. Just Brilliant!”

“So I guess it is only but fitting that we update everybody. Well this is fresh from the press as of June 24, 2015 10:31AM:

“http://globalnation.inquirer.net/125089/judge-who-favored-inc-contractor-in-hot-water”

To know if he is telling the truth, let us examine the evidence he gave. Does this news article says or proves that Ja Hoon Ku is still hiding from the law and the government agents were still looking for him? Let us quote the whole article:

JUDGE WHO FAVORED INC CONTRACTOR IN HOT WATER By Tetch Torres-Tupas Inquirer.net 12:17 pm June 24, 2015 The Supreme Court has ordered the filing of administrative charges against the judge who ignored the high tribunal’s orders on the detention of a South Korean contractor, who worked for the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) in building the Philippine Arena. Facing an administrative case is Manila Regional Trial Court (MTC) Judge Paulino Gallegos, who granted the writ of amparo to Ja Hoon Ku, whom the South Korean embassy says is wanted in their country for stealing $200 million. Ku was arrested by the Bureau of Immigration (BI) on January 16, 2014, on the request of the embassy. The South Korean fugitive sought a writ of amparo from the MTC, claiming that his life was in danger from being pursued by the government. Less than two weeks later, on January 28, Gallegos granted the writ to Ku and ordered his transfer to the custody of the Philippine National Police-Security and Protection Group, which the judge mandated to protect the foreigner and his family. BI Chief Siegfred Mison questioned the order of Gallegos before the Supreme Court, which restrained the order of the MTC. Subsequently, Mison petitioned the lower court to dismiss the case filed by Ku. However, Gallegos ruled that Mison’s petition was without merit, ignoring the ruling of the high tribunal. The Supreme Court saw the defiance of Gallegos as disrespecting an order of the country’s highest court. “A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court’s lawful order and directive,” the high court said. “Judge Gallegos should know that judges must respect the orders and decisions of higher tribunals, especially the Supreme Court from which all other courts take their bearings,” it added. The high tribunal continued, “When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of the law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary itself.” END OF STORY Source: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/125089/judge-who-favored-inc-contractor-in-hot-water

Nothing here in this article that says or support what Antonio Ebanghelista said that “government agents were still looking for him.” This article doesn’t prove anything he claims.

NOW YOU KNOW WHO’S TELLING THE TRUTH AND WHO’S LYING!