justice system

“Lahat Tayo, Talo”

Last night, over the late-night news broadcast on TV, Dad asked my opinion on Chief Justice Renato Corona’s impeachment trial.

I told him the “innocent until proven guilty” line, that the Prosecution should step up in court (not in the media) to convict Corona. Evidences are starting to pile up against CJ Corona (regarding his SALNs and dollar accounts, and the Basa-Guidote fiasco), and the Defense is doing what they were paid to do. Corona’s conviction depends on the Prosecution’s performance in front of the Senator-judges. If the evidences say CJ Corona’s guilty, then he’s guilty; if not, then he’s not.

Then, Dad made some points of his own. He was for CJ Corona’s conviction. He believes that CJ Corona is a major “obstacle” in President Noynoy Aquino’s tuwid na daan. “How could P-Noy continue his fight against corruption if the head of the judicial system himself is corrupt?”, Dad asked. He mentioned the “big fishes” the Aquino administration has caught: Abalos, the Arroyos, the Ampatuans, among others.

He laid out possible scenarios after Corona’s acquittal. Dad said it would be “payback time” for Corona: many (if not all) of cases involving former President Gloria Arroyo would be dismissed. He even predicted that P-Noy wouldn’t be able to finish his term in 2016.

According to him, he had conversed with a judge many times before. (Dad was a driver, by the way. I didn’t ask if the judge was from a Regional Trial Court, or Dad’s referring to a Supreme Court employee.) Dad and the judge agree that the Senator-judges are just “prolonging the process,” that they’ve already decided on the verdict. Dad even claimed that the judge said most of his colleagues are against Corona but cannot express it in public, because “Corona’s their boss.”

I then countered with the Hacienda Luisita case. If Corona gets convicted, I said, there’s a strong possibility that the vast Hacienda will be returned to the Cojuangcos. The poor farmers, who had just tasted victory late last year with SC’s decision to finally give parcels of land to them, would suffer defeat once again.

Here’s Dad’s response: P-Noy alone cannot decide on the fate of Hacienda Luisita by himself. He has the Aquino family and five other co-owner clans to consult. Besides, Hacienda Luisita is just one issue. What about the Maguindanao massacre in Mindanao? If CJ Corona gets acquitted, there’s a big chance that the Ampatuans will be cleared of any accountability.

~~~~~

I mainly focused on the here and now, Dad focused on the possible aftermath. Neither of us is completely right, but neither of us is completely wrong, too.

Our discussion later boiled down to this: whatever the verdict, we Filipinos won’t gain anything major from it. Lahat tayo, talo, Dad and I both said. Whether Corona wins or the Aquino administration wins, Dad and I see that nothing much will change. Filipinos below the poverty line wouldn’t get any direct benefit from all the chaos brought forth by the trial.

Would Corona’s conviction equate to more food on the tables and more income in the pockets of poor Pinoys? Would Corona’s acquittal mean a better justice system with the same Chief Justice in charge? If ‘Yes’ answers either question, then we stand corrected.

Plus, both sides exhibit conflicts of interest. You can’t deny the Corona-Arroyo connection, but you also can’t miss the Aquino-Cojuangco connection. Corona’s acquittal would benefit the Arroyos in one way or another, but Corona’s conviction would benefit the Aquinos, the Cojuangcos, and their allies, too, in one way or another.

~~~~~

Dad tried to argue that the ongoing impeachment trial is a “testament” to the long-standing Filipino issue on the justice system, that the ones who are rich and powerful win court cases every time, at the expense of the liberty of possibly innocent poor Filipinos. Of course, Dad’s argument is not applicable to the impeachment trial itself, because both sides are rich and powerful.

Pantay ang laban, kasi pare-pareho silang may pera eh. Which brings us to our second realization: that the impeachment trial is a battle only among the heads of two branches of government taking place in the arena of Branch #3 (the Senate). Its results will affect all of us, but not in any way are the Filipino people directly involved in handing the verdict to CJ Corona. We “pass” that responsibility to the Senate.

The impeachment process is a highly political one: the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court are given security of tenure, and can only be removed via impeachment, resignation or untimely death. So, when one Supreme Court judge break the law and uses the same law to get away with punishment, the government (in the name of public interest) has no other choices but to impeach said judge or force him to resign. Thus, the Aquino government’s recent actions. We can’t blame them; they have a mandate to meet.

~~~~~

So, if we’re all “losers” here, what should we do? A better question might be “What should CJ Corona do?”

If CJ Corona believes he’s really innocent, he’ll take the most valiant action: he himself will testify on the witness stand in the impeachment court as early as possible. If he can’t stand the fact that the Supreme Court is taking all the hits, he should resign or at least take a leave of absence.

But, if CJ Corona does this and/or if Corona gets convicted and removed from his post, it does not warrant the Aquino administration to do what it wishes.

In the name of independence and integrity of the Supreme Court, the Associate Justices should vote among themselves as to who would be the next Chief Justice. In my opinion, Presidents should not appoint the Chief Justice. He could appoint the Associate Justices, yes, but his “interference” ends there.

In the same way Supreme Court justices do not determine the fate of the President (except during impeachment or in Pres. Arroyo’s case, when one party questions the President’s legitimacy or qualifications), the President should not determine the next Chief Justice. In the same way the Filipino public alone elects the President, the Associate Justices alone should elect the next Chief Justice.

If this isn’t “acceptable”, we could give more power the Judicial and Bar Council. We could allow it to be made independent, and the sole appointing power of Associate Justices and Chief Justices. With this suggestion, more members should be added; the number of representatives from Senate and the House of Representatives should be equal to the number of delegates from the public sector and the legal community.

~~~~~

If only we could turn back time, we should have convinced Reynato Puno to temporarily call off his retirement, and be the Chief Justice until days after the inauguration of the new President, Benigno Aquino III. Puno’s May 12, 2011 retirement is the most “ill-timed” one in Philippine history. We could have avoided all of these troubles, had CJ Puno stayed for a little while.

Chaotic Justice

I set off for work earlier, catching a glimpse of today’s headlines on the newsstands. Here’s what was screaming on Philippine Daily Inquirer‘s cover page: ‘Corona’s penthouse bared’.

My initial reaction was, “What the hell? Pati ba naman penthouse ni CJ Corona, pinagdidiskitahan? Lahat ba ng mahal na kayang bilhin ng mga government officials, anomalous na? ‘Di ba pwedeng pinag-ipunan muna para mabili? Laki kaya ng sweldo nila. Look at the timing, too. Kung kailan ma-i-impeach si Corona, saka lang lalabas ‘yan para madiin siya lalo?”

I am defending Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona to an extent here because his “public persecution” and the “swift” chain of events leading to his impeachment is somwehat unfair to him. It’s somehow ironic that the government intends to “correct” the justice system by targeting the head of the judicial branch himself, and then air his supposed “dirty linens” in public outside of formal impeachment proceedings. Isn’t that meddling with the “wheels of justice,” making a mockery of the system?

Such is the “drama” here in the Philippines. Soap operas on mainstream TV become true-to-life; the leading actors are the politicians themselves. Erap’s impeachment trial, Gloria’s ongoing persecution, Noynoy Aquino vs Renato Corona, Jojo Binay vs Mar Roxas: the list goes on and on. And all the while, the nation gets dragged into the drama, and its progress stays on the sidelines, brought into the spotlight from time to time by these politicians only when they can make use of it.

~~~~~

When I got to the office, I read the headline’s details: that the penthouse might not be declared in CJ Corona’s SALN (it was transferred to Corona and his wife only in January 2010) – a supposed evidence for graft. A valid argument indeed, but the timing of the announcement is somewhat fishy.

Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas even declared that the prosecution team has got more “aces” versus Corona. Now, Tupas is asking what’s wrong with disclosing evidences to the public, who deserves to know the truth. Well, Rep. Tupas, the public will get that chance during the impeachment proceedings. Can’t it wait? What you are doing is the classic “jumping the gun” approach: publicize the evidences to win the public’s sympathy. When things don’t go the prosecution’s way, they’ll have a “supportive, misguided” public to turn to.

It’s my main complaint here in the Philippines: the courts are disregarded, deemed as “untrustworthy”. All cases involving politicians are brought into the “people’s court”. It’s not that I belittle the public’s intelligence; it’s just that these politicians twist the story in their favor most of the time. They utilize the media (and social media) to spread their agenda. The merits of the cases are pushed aside in favor of their own side, enveloped in appeals for pity and support.

How can we have an effective justice system if we have already called a person guilty of a crime before examining the evidences against him? Isn’t that unfair? It’s not Rep. Tupas’s, the Aquino administration’s, or even the public’s job to interpret the law or mete out punishments; it’s the courts’ job. The judges are beholden to the law agreed upon by the legislature and by the people. The courts weigh the merits of the cases, and prevent themselves from heeding to the wishes of the majority of the populace, which may be swayed by persons with vested interest. Fifty percent plus one is a majority already, and their opinion is not always the same as whole populace.

It brings into mind one person who is brutally put to death, as per the wishes of an angry mob, for a ridiculous crime he did not commit. An innocent Jesus Christ was nailed to the cross two millenia ago, yet it seems we’re not learning our lessons. Let’s wait for the courts to tell whether Chief Justice Renato Corona is innocent or not. Let’s follow the proceedings. Let’s point out what might be wrong in the process, not the situations of the persons involved. Actions, not emotions. Rules, not assumptions.

~~~~~

If we worry about judges (or in the case of Corona’s impeachment, Senators) being bribed, the truth will come out eventually. They’ll receive their punishment in due time. It’s important that the public is informed regularly by a trusted source which sticks to the merits of the case and filters out unnecessary drama. An impartial court, an independent media, and an intelligent populace: the three I’s of a fair justice system.

Sadly, the majority rule also applies in courts, especially in the Supreme Court. For now, I put my trust on the Senate, which seems to be fair and non-partisan. The Senate has 23 members, as compared to the SC’s 15.

~~~~~

To end, here’s a statement by Sen. Panfilo Lacson, who is apparently fed up with this unjust system the same way as I do.

“As a senator judge, I cannot sit idly by and watch blatant violations of our Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials that unambiguously prohibits senator judges as well as prosecutors, the person impeached, their counsels, and witnesses from making any comments and disclosures in public pertaining to the merits of a pending impeachment trial. If we allow such undisciplined public presentation of evidence by any party in utter disregard of the ethics of their legal profession to continue, the Senate may lose control of the situation and I am certain it will damage not just the Senate as an impeachment court but the sacredness of the whole impeachment process as well.”
– Sen. Panfilo Lacson

~~~~~

The above image is retrieved from the Philippine Daily Inquirer‘s e-paper site at PressDisplay.com.