By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — April 25, 2025

Introduction: A Judiciary Bleeding Trust

The Supreme Court’s April 23, 2025, charge of gross misconduct against retired Court of Appeals Justice Isaias Dicdican for allegedly masterminding the 2020 murder of Atty. Joey Luis Wee isn’t just a scandal—it’s a gut-punch to the judiciary’s crumbling facade. A lawyer gunned down in broad daylight, a former justice accused of orchestrating the hit: this case screams betrayal at the highest levels. As Kweba ng Katarungan dissects the legal and ethical carnage, the question looms: Will the SC deliver justice or another masterclass in judicial dodgeball? With public faith in the courts at a breaking point, Dicdican’s case is a crucible for accountability—or its absence.

Legal Critique: Unmasking a Justice’s Alleged Crimes

Murder and Conspiracy: The RPC’s Grim Ledger

Atty. Joey Luis Wee’s execution on November 23, 2020, falls under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, defining murder as killing with treachery or premeditation. The daylight ambush—Wee shot at his office doorstep, with CCTV showing lookouts and vehicles—reeks of a calculated hit. Dicdican’s alleged role as mastermind implicates him in a conspiracy, where, per Arias v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. L-81563, 1989), circumstantial evidence like coordinated actions suffices. The extrajudicial confession of retired Lt. Col. Edwin Layese, naming Dicdican, is pivotal—but its fragility could unravel the case, as we’ll see.

Disciplinary Reckoning: Rule 140’s Iron Grip

The SC’s administrative charge operates under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, which governs judicial discipline. Gross misconduct, a grave offense under Section 8, warrants disbarment or loss of pension. Dicdican’s 2015 retirement offers no shield; Re: Complaint Against Judge Peralta (A.M. No. RTJ-18-2518, 2018) affirms the SC’s power to punish retired judges for acts tarnishing judicial integrity. Allegedly plotting a murder isn’t just misconduct—it’s a desecration of the robe, justifying the harshest sanctions.

Ethical Collapse: Shredding the CPR’s Sacred Code

As a lawyer, Dicdican is bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Canon 1 demands upholding the law; Canon 7 requires professional dignity. Allegedly paying hitmen P1.5 million to kill Wee, as Layese claims, obliterates these duties. In Re: Laureta (A.M. No. 88-5-539-RTC, 1988)warns that lawyers undermining public trust face disbarment. If proven, Dicdican didn’t just falter—he turned the gavel into a murder weapon.

Critical Analysis: A Case Teetering on the Edge

Strengths: A Bold Strike Against Impunity

The SC’s charge is a rare flex of muscle, leveraging Layese’s confession and suspect Randy Benito Palparan’s corroboration, which ties Dicdican to the plot. The murder’s location—Dicdican’s law office building—adds damning context. In People v. Uy (G.R. No. 158403, 2005), the SC upheld extrajudicial confessions if voluntary and corroborated. Layese’s specifics (e.g., payments at Dicdican’s home) and Palparan’s testimony about Dicdican’s contact details strengthen the case, assuming no coercion taints the confession. The SC’s post-memorandum action signals urgency, a departure from its usual glacial pace.

Weaknesses: A Confession’s House of Cards

Layese’s confession is the charge’s Achilles’ heel. People v. Uy stresses that confessions must withstand scrutiny for coercion or motive. Layese, a murder suspect, could be deflecting blame or angling for leniency. Without hard evidence—bank records, texts, or witnesses—the confession risks collapsing, as in People v. Tan (G.R. No. 167072, 2007), where uncorroborated statements were rejected. The SC’s heavy reliance on this, sans criminal conviction, invites skepticism. Is this justice or a premature pile-on?

Retirement’s False Sanctuary

Dicdican’s retirement doesn’t save him. Re: Alleged Sexual Misconduct of Judge Renato A. Fuentes (A.M. No. RTJ-16-2446, 2016) confirms retired judges face discipline as Bar members. Yet, administrative penalties—disbarment, pension loss—pale against murder’s reclusion perpetua. If criminal charges stall, the public may see this as a token gesture, not retribution, undermining the SC’s moral authority.

Procedural Missteps: Justice on a Snail’s Pace

Five years to charge Dicdican? The SC’s tardiness is a mockery of justice. The NBI flagged Dicdican years ago, yet criminal probes languish in “preliminary investigation.” This echoes the Sereno ouster (G.R. No. 237428, 2018), where delays bred distrust. The 10-day non-extendible answer period under Rule 140 also risks due process violations. Zaldivar v. Gonzales (G.R. No. L-80578, 1988) criticized rushed disciplinary actions; Dicdican could exploit this to delay or appeal, prolonging the saga.

Controversies: A Motive Cloaked in Shadows

Courtroom Vendetta or Power Play?

Layese’s claim that Dicdican and a “Ms. Riza” targeted Wee over a lost case hints at a motive: professional revenge. Reports suggest Dicdican and Wee clashed as opposing counsels, possibly in a high-stakes suit where Wee’s victory cost Dicdican’s client dearly. Layese’s allegation that Dicdican also plotted against lawyer James Gupana in 2020 paints a rogue justice settling scores. Without Dicdican’s side, speculation festers: Was he a hired gun for a litigant or nursing a personal grudge? The silence is deafening.

Systemic Decay: The Judiciary’s Dirty Laundry

Dicdican’s case isn’t a lone stain—it’s part of a pattern. From the Sereno ouster to In Re: Bribes in the Judiciary (A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, 2009), the judiciary’s oversight failures are legion. Dicdican’s alleged murder plot while practicing law post-retirement exposes a blind spot: no monitoring of retired judges. Wee, the 53rd lawyer killed under Duterte, underscores the legal profession’s vulnerability. If a CA justice can allegedly bankroll hitmen, what’s stopping lesser players?

Recommendations: Slamming the Gavel Down

• Rush the Criminal Case: The SC must push the DOJ to file murder charges swiftly. Administrative slaps won’t suffice; Article 248’s penalties demand a courtroom showdown. Test Layese’s confession in open court, not prosecutor’s drawers.
• Lock Down Retired Judges: Amend Rule 140 for mandatory ethics checks on retiredJudge practicing law. The Judicial Integrity Board must hunt ghosts of the bench, not just active rogues.
• Shield Whistleblowers: Layese’s confession cracked the case. Enact judicial whistleblower protections, akin to R.A. 6981, to spur exposés without fear of reprisal.
• Open the Books: Release redacted case files to quash rumors. The Sereno mess thrived on secrecy; transparency is the SC’s only antidote to distrust.

Conclusion: No Mercy for Betrayers of the Robe

If Dicdican orchestrated Wee’s murder, he didn’t just stain the bench—he soaked it in blood. The SC’s charge is a spark, but justice demands a blaze. Five years after Wee’s killing, the judiciary can’t hide behind pensions or paperwork. Slam the gavel: expedite criminal charges, plug oversight holes, and show the public that no justice is above the law. Anything less, and the SC risks becoming a graveyard for trust, with Wee’s ghost as its grim sentinel.

Key Citations

• Arias v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-81563, 1989
• In Re: LauretaIn, A.M. No. 88-5-539-RTC, 1988
• People v. Uy, G.R. No. 158403, 2005
• Re: Alleged Sexual Misconduct of Judge Renato A. Fuentes (A.M. No. RTJ-16-2446, 2016)
• News: Inquirer, Rappler, Malaya

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.