KANGAROO COURT, MISRULE OF LAW
A LEGAL ATROCITY
Editorial
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:28 AM September 27, 2018
The decision of Makati Regional Trial Court Judge Elmo Alameda to
revive the rebellion case against Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV that he himself
dismissed, and to issue a warrant of arrest and a hold departure order against
the President’s chief critic, is a legal atrocity.
It is fundamentally unfair, because it shifts the burden of proof; it
is deeply undemocratic, because the court abandons its duty to serve as a check
on power; and it is essentially anti-judiciary, because it betrays a clear
partisanship.
The ruling is another unfortunate addition to the growing body of
judicial rationalizations that Inquirer columnist John Nery calls
“jurisPRRDence” — court rulings “that break both law and logic, offend the
Constitution and overturn normality,” just to meet President Rodrigo Roa
Duterte’s “partisan political objectives.”
How else can Alameda’s decision, which was handed down on Tuesday, be
understood? Its entire argument centers on this passage:
“To prove that Senator Trillanes did not apply for amnesty under
Proclamation No. 75, the prosecution presented a certification dated Aug. 30,
2018, issued and signed by one Thea Joan Andrade, Lieutenant Colonel JAGS,
Chief, Discipline, Law and
Order Division, to wit:
“‘To whom it may concern:
‘This is to certify that based on the records of this office, ex-LTSG
Antonio F. Trillanes IV O-11797 PN was granted amnesty on Jan. 21, 2011,
pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. 75 dated Nov. 24, 2010… However,
there is no copy of his application for amnesty in the records.
‘This certification is issued upon the request of Solicitor General
Jose C. Calida.’
“The Court’s evaluation of the above certification is that it confirms
the claim of the prosecution that Senator Trillanes did not apply for amnesty.”
Truly, there is none so blind as he who refuses to see.
The certification Andrade issued at Calida’s request confirms that
“there is no copy” of the application, not that Trillanes did not apply at all.
In fact, the same certification confirms that, “based on the records of
this office,” Trillanes, as a former member of the military (“ex-LTSG”), was in
fact granted amnesty.
So an honest and fair evaluation of Andrade’s certification should lead
to the conclusion that Trillanes’ application for amnesty is missing. That’s
it.
Because this secondary document was in the safekeeping of Andrade’s
division, the responsibility for its loss, and any administrative or criminal
liability, lies with Andrade and her staff, not with Trillanes.
If, say, Judge Alameda’s passport was to be challenged at the airport
because the Department of Foreign Affairs cannot find the application or
renewal form he filled out and filed, he would have the right to be incensed,
both at the absurdity of the challenge and the DFA’s negligence. The passport
itself is proof that the process was followed.
But Alameda was not content to stop at making his illogical and unjust
evaluation. He proceeded to overturn one of the most fundamental of rights
guaranteed by the Constitution — the presumption of innocence — and shifted the
burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.
“Since Senator Trillanes wants to establish a legal right on the
amnesty granted to him, he has therefore the burden of proving his compliance
with the minimum requirements to entitle him to be granted amnesty…”
In other words, and even without as much as a modicum of introspection,
Alameda presumes that Trillanes is guilty of not complying with the amnesty
requirements, and wants him to prove his innocence.
This is wrong, plain and simple. The burden is on Andrade’s office, to
explain how the secondary document went missing, and on the Department of
Justice, to prove that the grant of amnesty to Trillanes — itself confirmed in
the certification — must be considered anomalous, violative of the presumption
of regularity.
The power to grant amnesty, shared by the political branches of
government, is not something that the courts should trifle with. At the same
time, abuse by any branch should be decisively met by the countervailing force
of judicial reasoning. This did not happen with Alameda’s ruling.
Indeed, Alameda showed a curious preference. He immediately presumed
that Proclamation No. 75, issued by President Benigno Aquino III in 2010, must
be invalid or has no effect on Trillanes.
He also immediately presumed that Proclamation No. 572, issued by
President Duterte last month, supersedes Aquino’s amnesty proclamation.
Now why would he think that?
‘ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE’
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:10 AM October 05, 2018
To argue that Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV did not apply for amnesty
because his application for amnesty is missing is to commit the fallacy of
argument from silence. This fallacy of reasoning states that if a record of an
event cannot be found, then that event did not occur. This argument is
erroneous, because an event could have happened even if no record of it could
be found. In other words, lack of record does not disprove an event.
Examples: If a person has no criminal record, it does not mean he
hasn’t committed any crime. He could have committed a crime, but he hasn’t been
caught. That is why there is no record.
Just because one has no certificate of employment from a certain
company, it does not follow that she did not work there. There is no
certificate because the company did not release one, or she did not ask for it.
One cannot say that he did not buy an item just because the receipt is
missing. He could have made the purchase, but he threw away the receipt.
Inability to produce a marriage contract does not prove that one did
not get married. Likewise, one cannot conclude that Trillanes did not apply for
amnesty because his application for amnesty cannot be produced. Someone might
just have misplaced, hidden or even destroyed the documents.
It is possible that the application is missing, because the senator
really did not apply for amnesty. However, we believe that a person is presumed
innocent unless proven guilty. If the absence of an application form for
amnesty is not automatic proof of such non-application, then Trillanes must be
presumed innocent. Case dismissed.
JORI GERVASIO R. BENZON, joribenzon@gmail.com
‘COWARDLY DECISION’
Inquirer.net
05:02 AM October 02, 2018
I feel dismayed and outraged by the cowardly decision of Judge Elmo
Alameda who chose to side with the oppressors instead of the oppressed, in this
case the vociferous critic whose only fault is that he has been made to enjoy,
as a matter of fact, a life of liberty for more than 10 years as a former
rebel.
For the life of me, I cannot imagine how the honorable judge can
honestly say to his children and loved ones that it is the fault of Sen.
Antonio Trillanes that his application forms for amnesty cannot be found and
that, therefore, he should be arrested and deprived of freedom.
Dear God, have mercy on the oppressors!
MARIANO F. CARPIO,
Las Piñas City
TARGETING TRILLANES
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:24 AM September 06, 2018
Proclamation No. 572, issued by the President on Aug. 31 but published
only on Sept. 4, when he was already on his official visit to Israel, seeks to
revoke the grant of amnesty given to Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV in 2011 as “void
ab initio” and orders his immediate arrest.
This act of the Executive is not only a grievous mistake, an unwise
policy that will undermine confidence in the government’s amnesty programs; it
is also, and above all, a gross violation of the Constitution and an attack on
the very rule of law.
…Stripped of legal gobbledygook, the President’s order asserts that
Trillanes failed to meet two conditions of his amnesty.
First, that Trillanes “did not file an Official Amnesty Application
Form as per the Certification dated Aug. 30, 2018, issued by Lt. Col. Thea Joan
N. Andrade… stating that ‘there is no available copy of his application for
amnesty in the records.’”
And second, that Trillanes “never expressed his guilt for the crimes
that were committed on occasion of the Oakwood Mutiny and Peninsula Manila
Hotel Siege.”
As TV reports and newspaper stories from 2011 show, Trillanes and other
ex-mutineers said that “they were not admitting guilt to the mutiny and coup
d’etat charges.” (This and another quote are included in the presidential
proclamation.)
But the same reports and stories also show, first, that Trillanes (like
others) did file his application form, and second, that he (like others) made a
“general admission of guilt” in his application, which he swore to.
Between this sworn statement and his boastful statements before the
media, which one carries legal weight?
And if the same TV reports and newspaper stories show that he had filed
his application, then the issue of liability reverts to the military office in
charge of the documents.
The application form, complete with ID photos and signatures, was seen
by many witnesses and, by extension, by tens of thousands of TV viewers.
That it was valid is proven by the amnesty the Armed Forces processed
and Trillanes received.
If his application is missing now, then the officials in charge of that
document must answer for it.
Trillanes himself gives the best analogy for the Duterte
administration’s “case” against him.
To acquire a passport, a citizen needs to meet certain requirements. A
passport is issued only if all the requirements are met. If one of those
required documents happens to go missing in the archives of the Department of
Foreign Affairs, the passport does NOT become invalid.
The “case” against him now is exactly the same; the grant of amnesty is
itself proof that all the requirements were met. If, after the grant, one of
the required documents goes missing, the amnesty remains valid.
It does not become invalid, or void from the start, on mere
presidential say-so.
Indeed, an amnesty should not be revoked, because it imperils trust in
the government as a negotiating party. And if an amnesty can be revoked,
revocation must be at the same hands of those who granted it: the President and
Congress, together.
A President cannot order anyone’s arrest, without a court order.
A civilian cannot be reclassified as military, on the President’s whim.
And no one, not even the President, can change the rule of law to fit
political objectives — or hit political targets.
‘MALI SIYA’: SERENO HITS JUDGE WHO ISSUED TRILLANES ARREST ORDER
Mike Navallo, ABS-CBN News
Posted at Sep 27 2018 07:50 PM
MANILA - Ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on Thursday said the
regional trial court judge erred in ordering the arrest of Senator Antonio
Trillanes.
Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 150 Judge Elmo Alameda
misappreciated the evidence presented during the hearing of the Department of
Justice’s motion for the issuance of an alias writ of warrant of arrest against
the legislator, said Sereno.
“Mali yung kanyang pag-appreciate at pag-weigh ng evidence that was
presented. Shinift niya ang burden of proof to someone who has all the
hallmarks of a valid order that has been given to him,” she told ABS-CBN News
at the sidelines of the public introduction of her new movement, Bawat Isa
Mahalaga.
(His appreciation and weighing of evidence presented was wrong. He shifted the burden of proof to
someone who has all the hallmarks of a valid order that has been given to him.)
“It is on the part of government that has to prove that no application
was ever filed. They were not able to prove that,” she said.
In his order, Alameda said that “[s]ince Senator Trillanes wants to
establish a legal right on the amnesty granted to him, he has therefore the
burden of proving his compliance with the minimum requirements to entitle him
to be granted amnesty under Proclamation No. 75, series of 2010.”
Alameda ruled that Trillanes failed to substantiate his claim that he
filed an application for amnesty when he was unable to present the “original
hard copy, a duplicate copy, or even a photocopy showing that he personally
accomplished and filed with the DND (Department of National Defense) Amnesty
Committee his Official Amnesty Form duly acknowledged and stamped marked
received…”
Alameda did not consider the pictures and documents Trillanes
presented, including affidavits of former DND Usec Honorio Ascueta and Col.
Josefa Berbigal, the Chairman and Head of Secretariat, respectively, of the DND
Amnesty Committee.
Instead, he relied on the certification from the Armed Forces of the
Philippines that it has no copy of the senator’s amnesty application, to
conclude that Trillanes did not file any application.
But Sereno thinks otherwise and warns against the implications of this
logic.
“It was never Senator Trillanes’ burden to do it. Kung gagawin mo ‘yun,
e di all the certificates that we have, presumptively also void ab initio kung
wala tayong kopya ng application form,” she said.
(It was never Senator Trillanes’ burden to do it. If you will do that,
then all the certificates that we have
are also presumed to be void ab initio if we don’t have a copy of the
application form.)
“Even our marriage contract kung walang kopya, driver’s license,
passports natin. Hindi naman ganun ka-importante yan na nasa ating possession
because it is the custodial officer who has the legal duty to keep it, and that’s
DND,” she added.
(Even our marriage contract, if you do not have the copy of the
application form, our driver’s license, passports. It’s not important to have
that in our possession because it is the custodial officer who has the legal
duty to keep it, and that’s DND.)
Sereno said that the DND, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and its
Amnesty Commission should have Trillanes’ application form, and if the
officials lost this, then they committed “infidelity in the custody of
documents,” which is a crime.
She said the judge should have asked the custodian why the document was
missing.
“May contrary evidence si Senator Trillanes na nag-file siya ng
application. And he could not have come to the conclusion na wala talaga.
Instead, he should have ordered an examination on whether they exercised
fidelity in the custody of documents,” she said.
(Senator Trillanes has contrary evidence that he filed the application.
He (Alameda) could not have come to the conclusion that there really is none.
Instead, he should have ordered an examination on whether they exercised
fidelity in the custody of documents.)
Sereno said Trillanes’ ordeal was an opportunity for the judge to exhibit
independence from the executive branch and uphold the Constitution.
She said this is a violation of the equal protection clause, as she
lamented how the Palace said Trillanes’ amnesty was revoked because he was the
loudest.
“This is a violation of the
equal protection clause. This is a violation
of the constitutional role of amnesty as wiping out all traces of the
crime,” she said.
“Nakakakilabot. ’Yan na nga sinasabi ko e. The reason why I had to
stand and fight regardless of the consequences is because if our judges cannot
be independent and fight,” she said, referring to moves to oust her which she
eventually blamed on the President.
(It’s terrifying. That’s what I’ve been saying. The reason why I had to
stand and fight regardless of the consequences is because if our judges cannot
be independent and fight.)
In another dig at the judge, Sereno said doing what is right is more
important than not ever being promoted.
“Because at the end of the day, you have to face your maker. The Bible
has a lot of requirements on the standards for judges and the Code of Judicial
Conduct has very strong words for judicial independence,” she said.
“Napaka-nakakapanlumo ang nangyari kay Senator Trillanes. At nakakapanlumo
na ang mga huwes natin, nagtatanong na ngayon ang taong bayan kung maaasahan ba
natin sila? Sana ang mga huwes natin kaya nating tinagalain. Proud sana tayo.
Ganyan pa ba ang sitwasyon ngayon?”
(What happened to Senator Trillanes is very disheartening. People are asking if we can still trust our
judges. The judges should be looked up to. We should be proud? Is that
still the case?)
Link: https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/09/27/18/mali-siya-sereno-hits-judge-who-issued-trillanes-arrest-order
TRILLANES WARNS OF SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES IF HIS AMNESTY IS VOIDED
Inquirer Mobile
October 03, 2018 07:25am
Leila B. Salaverria
Warning of the grave consequences of President Rodrigo Duterte’s move
to void his amnesty, Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV on Tuesday called on his Senate
colleagues to join him in his Supreme Court petition challenging the constitutionality
of the presidential proclamation.
Trillanes took to the Senate floor to blast the President’s
Proclamation No. 572, which he said raised “alarming” issues that would
overturn settled jurisprudence.
“It will destroy basically the various institutions of our government,”
Trillanes said.
“So I hope our colleagues would unite to be intervenors in the Supreme
Court to resolve this and for us to be enlightened once and for all,” he added.
It could happen again
If the President would be allowed to get away with the proclamation,
the same thing could happen in the future if the next leader would make things
personal, Trillanes warned.
He said there was reason to be concerned since the proclamation itself functioned as an arrest order, as it directed
law enforcers to seize him following the voiding of his amnesty so that he
could be tried for rebellion and coup d’état for the failed mutinies.
He said there were people claiming that the proclamation was presumed
valid unless otherwise stated by the Supreme Court.
This is wrong, Trillanes
said, because it means the President can, for instance, order the arrest of all
journalists.
If the arrested journalists complain, then it might be argued that
their arrest is valid until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, he said.
Violation of rights
But jurisprudence states that when
a proclamation, on its face, would
violate the Bill of Rights and infringe on fundamental freedoms, it is presumed
unconstitutional, he added.
The Senate, Trillanes said, should also be concerned because an amnesty cannot be revoked, and
unilaterally at that.
“It will set a bad precedent and no one will trust us anymore in the
future,” he said.
The grant of amnesty is instrumental in a peace policy, Trillanes said.
The absence of the application
form, he said, should not be allowed to be used as basis for voiding an
amnesty because there should be presumption
of regularity on the issuance of the document.
The President also could not reverse a final ruling made by
the courts, Trillanes said, referring to the move to revive his dismissed
rebellion and coup d’état cases.
“He is entering the territory of the judiciary,” he said.
No final ruling
Moreover, a judge cannot revive
a case based on the motion of the prosecution, Trillanes said.
“Unless this is reversed by the Supreme Court, it will again set a very
bad precedent. Why? Because no final ruling in any case---whether it’s a land
case or an annulment case --- will be made final because it can be opened with
a motion from the prosecution,” he said.
Trillanes also called on the blue ribbon committee headed by Sen.
Richard Gordon to investigate P358 million worth of contracts bagged by the
security agency of Solicitor General Jose Calida’s family.
He said the contracts posed a conflict of interest because Calida was
supposed to serve as the lawyer of government agencies, and he had not divested
himself of the majority holdings in the security company.
Calida has resigned as chair and president of the company.
Trillanes pointed out that it was the solicitor general’s duty to
review any contract entered into by government agencies.
IBP WARNS OF ‘CHAOS’ OVER TRILLANES AMNESTY FIGHT
Published September 10, 2018 11:56am
By NICOLE-ANNE C. LAGRIMAS, GMA News
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on Monday warned of the
“chaos” that could ensue from the government’s “apparently concerted effort” to
arrest and lock up Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, a staunch critic of the
Duterte administration.
In a statement, the Board of Governors of the organization of all
Philippine lawyers called out the Department of Justice (DOJ) for seeking an
arrest warrant for the opposition senator from the two courts that previously
dismissed rebellion and coup d’etat charges against him.
The DOJ awaits directives from the Makati Regional Trial Court’s Branch
148 and 150 on its motions for an alias warrant of arrest and a travel ban
order against Trillanes, whose amnesty for his participation in military uprisings
against the Arroyo administration was recently voided by President Rodrigo
Duterte.
Branch 148 handled the coup d’etat case against Trillanes and others,
while Branch 150 handled the rebellion case. Both cases were dismissed on the
ground of the amnesty grant, but the DOJ contends that the amnesty
nullification stripped the dismissals of basis.
“An apparent act of forum shopping, IBP decries the potential mischief
where we subject the judiciary to an anomalous situation where one court
upholds the validity of the amnesty while the other nullifies the same,” the
IBP said.
“The chaos that may result from the endeavors to bring Senator
Trillanes to face ‘justice’ ironically undermines our systems that make the
orderly administration of justice possible,” it added.
Duterte has declared “void ab initio,” or void from the beginning, the
amnesty granted to Trillanes by former President Benigno Aquino III in 2011 for
the lawmaker’s alleged failure to comply with the “minimum” requirements: an
application for amnesty and an admission of guilt.
Trillanes denies the charges and has challenged the presidential
proclamation before the Supreme Court.
The IBP, for its part, maintained that amnesty, once granted, cannot simply be overturned “by the invocation
of the words ‘void ab initio’ as though it were some magical incantation
that can nullify vested rights.”
“The IBP reiterates that amnesty is an exercise of sovereign power that
automatically confers upon the grantee vested rights appurtenant to the
obliteration of the ‘offense with which he is charged. A person released by
amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no
offense,’” it said.
It also expressed its “deep concern” about the position “being peddled
to the public that records of the executive branch can be used to overturn
final dismissals of criminal charges by our courts."
Arresting Trillanes for offenses that were dismissed after he was
amnestied, the IBP added, runs against
the right against double jeopardy.
“Within the bounds of sub judice, the IBP thus calls for sobriety in
this time of political confusion. It exhorts the courts to resist collateral
attacks against it judgments and creeping incursions on its independence,” the
IBP said. —KG, GMA News
Leni Robredo: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/669165/vp-robredo-court-broke-law-in-issuing-order-to-arrest-trillanes/story/
Rodolfo Biazon: https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/09/26/18/trillanes-arrest-a-constitutional-problem-biazon-says
WEAPONIZING THE LAW
By: Gideon Lasco - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:22 AM September 06, 2018
It is not the law that reigns supreme in our land, but those who can
choose when to invoke it, how to interpret it, and for (or against) whom. “Dura
lex, sed lex” — the law is hard, but it is the law—but this dictum seemingly
applies only if the powers that be see you as an enemy. The law, in this case,
is an unforgiving sword, sanctioned by those who uncritically accept its a
priori righteousness. Meanwhile, enabled by the same blind faith in its letter,
others use the law as a shield.
This sad reality is as old as our political history. Andres Bonifacio
himself was executed upon the orders of a military court, whose members — and
even his own prosecutor — were under the influence of the president at the
time, Emilio Aguinaldo. It was, as far as the revolutionary government was
concerned, a lawful act — even though historians now recognize it as a grave
injustice.
Ferdinand Marcos, a lawyer, likewise saw the need to legalize his
authoritarian ways. The 1973 Constitution which legalized his dictatorship was
sanctioned by the Supreme Court, affirmed by justices whose names we must
always remember: Querube Makalintal, Fred Ruiz Castro, Antonio Barredo, Felix
Makasiar, Felix Antonio and Salavador Esguerra.
After Edsa, there was some hope that things would be different, but a
truly independent judiciary has remained a pipe dream. President Duterte
promised change, but under his administration, we have seen a further
weaponization of the law, ironically, alongside its wanton disregard: Young
people like Kian delos Santos and Joshua Laxamana are mercilessly killed, while
the policemen implicated in their killings demand “due process.” People and
places alike are baselessly linked to drugs, while Polong Duterte, asked simply
to his show (or disprove) the drug triad tattoo on his back, invokes his “right
to privacy.”
With only the unreliable, uncorroborated testimony of convicts,
antidrug laws are invoked against Sen. Leila de Lima. With only the most
liberal interpretation of “political activities,” immigration laws are
mobilized against Sister Patricia Fox. Suddenly, an obscure provision of the
law is used against Rappler — and such a technicality is suddenly more
important than the principle of press freedom.
Then we have the ouster of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno by quo
warranto, on the flimsy basis of some allegedly missing documents. The clarity
of the Constitution itself notwithstanding, eight Supreme Court justices found
a way to justify the removal of one of their colleagues. Once more, the law—or
a twisted interpretation thereof—has been used to legitimize what will
doubtless be remembered as a “legal abomination.”
Most recently, we have the attempted revocation of Sen. Antonio
Trillanes’ amnesty. Despite the fact that, in former Solicitor General Florin
Hilbay’s words, President Duterte “has no unilateral constitutional authority
to nullify an amnesty,” he brazenly tests the limits of the law, confident that
the PNP, AFP and the courts will do his bidding. Despite extensive
documentation of the fact that Trillanes actually admitted guilt (a
precondition of amnesty), he is accused of not doing so; despite the fact that
the amnesty covered many others—including Danilo Lim and Nicanor
Faeldon—Trillanes is inexplicably singled out.
Faced with all these travesties of justice, the challenge for all
concerned Filipinos is to find and fight for our common ground, which is
democracy and rule of law. Sadly, many people are refusing to rally behind De
Lima or Trillanes because of their respective pasts, even when they are clearly
victims of present injustice.
Until we recognize that the fight against tyranny is bigger than all of
us, we will always be divided and conquered.
As for our public officials, I ask: Can you stomach the abuse of power
that’s happening before your eyes? And to our uniformed personnel: Will you
really keep allowing yourselves to be instruments of greed and vindictiveness?
When the day of reckoning comes, you will be held to account for your
actions—or inaction. Silence is not a option in the face of a regime that
pretends to follow the rule of law, when it is actually fomenting one-man rule.
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/115879/weaponizing-the-law#ixzz5Tlb94g4Y
***
APHORISMS
“In practice law is not a well-wrought urn but the purveyor of tortuous vagaries.”
“Under a tyranny the law is misused as an instrument of injustice, persecution, repression, and oppression.”
“The rule of law creates, builds, and sustains just societies.”
“Twisted logic is the tendrils of an evil spirit.”
“Politicization of the judiciary weakens it, ensuring that those who have less in life will have even less in law.”
“Intelligence with integrity is fair-mindedness, without integrity it is venality.”
“Genuine democracy, which subsists in the democratic values and principles internalized by the people, is subverted when criminal leaders controvert the laws embodying the people’s deepest aspirations for freedom from tyranny.”
“A government of values and principles is degraded by a regime of patronage and corruption.”
“Democracy is a work in progress, fascism a work in regress.”
“He who does not take a stand sits on his rights.”
Link: https://poetryofgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2018/07/politics.html
“He who does not take a stand sits on his rights.”
Link: https://poetryofgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2018/07/politics.html
(1 of 3)
ReplyDelete[ANALYSIS] AT STAKE IN TRILLANES AMNESTY CASE
Tony La Viña
One can only hope the judiciary, through Judge Andres Soriano and eventually through the Supreme Court, draw the line here and save the country from a future without the possibility of peace and national reconciliation
Proclamation No. 75 was issued by former president Noynoy Aquino granting amnesty to active and former military personnel who participated in the Oakwood mutiny, the Marines standoff and the Peninsula Manila Hotel incident. It was concurred in by the majority of all the members of Congress and on the basis of this proclamation, the Department of National Defense (DND) created an ad hoc committee to process amnesty applications.
According to Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, he applied with the ad hoc committee on 5 January 2011, using for the purpose the forms prescribed by the said committee and swore to it in accordance with its rules. His application was subsequently recommended for approval through a letter dated 25 January 2011 and sent by then defense secretary Voltaire Gazmin to then president Aqiuno.
Gazmin endorsed and approved the applications for amnesty of 38 officers and 53 enlisted personnel, indicating that no opposition to the amnesty applications was received by the DND.
Eight years late, Proclamation No 572 is issued to void Trillanes’ grant of amnesty on the ground that the senator supposedly failed to comply with two requirements for the granting of amnesty: (1) application for amnesty and (2) admission of guilt. His supposed failure to file an application, containing the required admission of guilt, is the basis of President Duterte’s proclamation.
In this controversy, what is at stake is not only the process of granting amnesties and well-settled evidentiary rules but the very concept of amnesty itself as a tool of national reconciliation.
Not a void amnesty
The case of Trillanes is one of first impression. Never before has an amnesty proclamation been voided unilaterally by a seating president.
However, knowing the rules and jurisprudence on amnesty is not rocket science.
Suffice it to say, for example, that except during the American period, the power to grant amnesty has always been expressly provided for as a power shared by both the executive and the legislative branches of government.
Is the President then authorized to invalidate an amnesty grant unilaterally and by a mere stroke of a pen by the executive without the participation of Congress and without a declaration by the courts?
(To be continued)
Gonzalinho
[ANALYSIS] AT STAKE IN TRILLANES AMNESTY CASE
ReplyDeleteTony La Viña
(continued 2 of 3)
Against practice
As to the argument that the amnesty to the Magdalo group is void because it was signed only by Secretary Gazmin, this assertion falls against the practice of all previous administrations where the processing and approval of amnesty applications have in fact been delegated to committees or to designated officials.
Malacañang seems to confuse the proclamation of the amnesty, which only the President can issue with the concurrence of the Congress, and the approval of applications availing of the amnesty which has always been delegated. Besides, Proclamation No. 527 did not include this as a ground for annulling the Trillanes amnesty and both the trial courts and the Supreme Court should disregard this argument.
As to admitting guilt, the case of Barriquinto v. Fernandez decided by the Supreme Court in 1949 can be informative.
In that case the Supreme Court opined that “In order to entitle a person to the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation of September 7, 1946, it is not necessary that he should, as a condition precedent or sine qua non, admit having committed the criminal act or offense with which he is charged and allege the amnesty as a defense; it is sufficient that the evidence either of the complainant or the accused, shows that the offense committed comes within the terms of said Amnesty Proclamation. Hence, it is not correct to say that "invocation of the benefits of amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance."
In any case, the amnesty application that the Magdalo soldiers signed and submitted did contain specific admissions of guilt.
Responsibility for lost applications
In issuing a warrant of arrest against Senator Trillanes, Judge Elmo Alameda of Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 150, said that his failure to produce an original copy or “even a photocopy” of Senator Trillanes' actual amnesty application form is sufficient basis to say he really failed to file it.
This controversial ruling disregarded the affidavits submitted by the respondent attesting to the fact that he indeed filed an application. Particularly, former defense amnesty panel chair Honorio Azcueta and head of secretariat Josefa Berbigal submitted sworn affidavits to this effect, with the latter stating that she personally received Trillanes’ amnesty application on 5 January 2011.
In rejecting these affidavits, Judge Alameda reasoned that Berbigal’s affidavit and similar supporting affidavits are “substitute documents” that are “barren of probative weight.”
While the original copy remains the best evidence, the Rules of Court does not discount the presentation of secondary evidence when the original copy is lost or destroyed.
Thus, Rule 130, sec. 5 provides:
"When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated."
This rule clearly applies to circumstances obtaining in the Trillanes case.
(To be continued)
Gonzalinho
[ANALYSIS] AT STAKE IN TRILLANES AMNESTY CASE
ReplyDeleteTony La Viña
(continued 3 of 3)
The presentation of secondary evidence specifically, the affidavit of Berbigal, is obviously justified given that the original copy of the application or a photocopy is missing and cannot be located. Most people do not keeps applications for official documents.
If one is asked to prove your date of birth or your marriage, a person submits a birth or marriage certificate and not the applications for those documents. The government keeps custody of those documents and should be held accountable when they are lost (in fact, applications are routinely archived and even destroyed after a period of time as they are not essential documents).
Armed Forces of the Philippines chief of staff Carlito Galvez Jr himself acknowledged that Trillanes had applied for amnesty and that it has been properly processes. Equally important, General Galvez took responsibility for the loss of the application, which he attributed to lapses within the organization.
The future of amnesty
In a scholarly and brilliant treatise on amnesty published in the 1990s in the Philippine Law Journal, Professor Alberto Muyot, my colleague in the University of the Philippines College of Law, discusses the concept of amnesty in the context of Philippine political experience.
According to him, in the many instances that amnesty has been proclaimed in the country since the American period up to the present, it would seem to indicate that amnesty is considered an important and useful tool in the political system, used either to forge unity among the people, or as in the case of the Marcos proclamations, to be used as a counter-insurgency measure, intended to divide the ranks of the rebel groups.
He explains the effect of amnesty, saying that class or classes of persons accused of certain offenses against the State granted an amnesty is deemed to constitute an act of oblivion, obliterating not just the penalty but the offense itself.
Voiding Trillanes’ amnesty is a very dangerous precedent.
It negates the very purpose for which an amnesty is granted. If done, any amnesty proclamation cannot be trusted anymore. It will be seen as a Damocles sword hovering over the heads of rebels or dissidents who want to return to the fold of law.
After all, it can be voided by a hostile admininstration at any time, and cases previously dismissed can then be resurrected.
One can only hope the judiciary, through RTC Judge Andres Soriano and eventually through the Supreme Court, draw the line here and save the country from a future without the possibility of peace and national reconciliation. – Rappler.com
Link: https://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/213531-analysis-at-stake-trillanes-amnesty-case
Gonzalinho
THESE 3 ARE REAL THREATS TO DEMOCRACY
ReplyDeleteBy: John Nery - @jnery_newsstand
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:07 AM October 09, 2018
…Let me highlight only three of these antidemocracy tools.
A. The rule of law has been turned into a blunt weapon of executive action.
The first lawyer-president since Marcos, Mr. Duterte has a decidedly nonlawyerly attitude to the rule of law: Whatever works. He once infamously said that he used to plant evidence on or against suspects, when he was still a city prosecutor. He has since leveled up. His solicitor general’s specious arguments for a quo warranto judgment against the chief justice reflect his own partisan and utilitarian approach to legal cases.
His solicitor general enjoys “unwarranted influence,” to borrow the language [President Dwight] Eisenhower used [in his famous farewell address]. In the quo warranto case, the majority in the Supreme Court followed his lead—and marched right off the edge of the jurisprudential cliff. The dissenters on the Court were left to describe the “grave implications” of the justices’ collective fit. The majority used the case to “rewrite the Constitution,” Justice Antonio Carpio said. The ruling is a “legal abomination,” Justice Marvic Leonen said. The Court committed institutional suicide “without honor,” Justice Alfredo Caguioa said.
B. The institutions with weapons are being transformed into sources of executive legitimacy.
President Duterte seems to have responded to his initial awe of the professionalism of the military leadership by coopting them into his administration.
This, to borrow Eisenhower’s language, is a “combination” with “grave implications” for “the very structure of our society.” We must beware of what may turn out to be a military-political complex — I mean both the militarization of politics, through President Duterte’s active policy of hiring recently retired military generals or ranking officers, now around 30 in all, to staff the highest echelons of the government; and the politicization of the military, through the President’s repeated appeals to the military leadership to form a junta.
This is certainly dangerously “misplaced power,” in Eisenhower’s sense, and it puts “our liberties and democratic processes” at great risk.
C. The executive is attempting to booby-trap public spaces with weaponized rhetoric, to control public speech.
I am old enough to remember when the direst threat to public discourse was the President’s coarse, sometimes abusive language. Then it became “fake news” and other forms of disinformation. Now, Brig. Gen. Antonio Parlade Jr. is painting 18 universities as communist recruiting grounds. The real threat to the democratic project is not the red-tagging, although that is serious in itself, but the complete misunderstanding of the role of universities in the shaping of the nation.
Parlade said video clips about human rights abuses under Marcos were being shown in these universities “to incite students to rebel against the government, incite resurgence of the First Quarter Storm experience among students while projecting President Duterte as the new Marcos.” But the teaching of the history of the Marcos martial law regime is required by law and demanded by justice; if the Duterte administration does not like being compared to the Marcos regime, it should not commit Marcosian abuses—such as resort to Parlade’s own scare tactic.
“Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry,” to use Eisenhower’s terms again, can prevent the “disastrous rise of misplaced power.”
What can be done? What can we do?
We must all protect and promote countervailing forces — those ideas and institutions, those values and organizations, that push back when democracy comes under pressure. Pushing back is not tantamount to seeking the President’s ouster. Rather, it is the sometimes collective, sometimes individual action we need to take to preserve democratic space.
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/116632/3-real-threats-democracy#ixzz5Tlc27w5R
Gonzalinho
THE MOST POLITICAL CHIEF JUSTICE LEAVES THE COURT
ReplyDeleteBy: Oscar P. Lagman Jr. - @inquirerdotnet 05:04 AM October 16, 2018
At the Supreme Court farewell ceremony for Chief Justice Teresita de Castro, employees present quoted her as saying she “never played politics” in her 45 years in government service. That claim can only be taken as a vain attempt to negate her reputation as the judge who rose to the Supreme Court and to the position of chief justice because she played politics.
De Castro headed the special division of the Sandiganbayan that sentenced former president Joseph Estrada to life imprisonment for the crime of plunder. Soon after the highly politicized trial, President Gloria Arroyo, who assumed the presidency after Estrada was ousted, appointed De Castro to the Supreme Court. This led some people to claim that De Castro had convicted Estrada in exchange for a seat in the Supreme Court.
Notable among the guests at the recent farewell ceremony was former president Arroyo, the only guest from outside the judiciary.
De Castro also led the controversial ouster of then Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, who opposed many edicts, orders and pronouncements of President Duterte. Many law experts called the quo warranto mode used to oust Sereno unconstitutional. Shortly after the high tribunal’s decision, the President appointed De Castro chief justice, leading political pundits to call her appointment as a reward for her oust-Sereno initiative.
De Castro said her critics ought to look at her track record, which had taken her from the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, the Sandiganbayan, and back to the high tribunal. Indeed, she had established a record that qualified her to the highest position in the judiciary.
But one thoughtless act on a single day destroyed the lofty stature she had gained through those many years. That was when she appeared before the justice committee of the House of Representatives to testify against Sereno.
In that appearance, she gave vent to her feelings when, in reference to the Judicial and Bar Council’s nomination of Sereno to the post of chief justice in 2012, she told the committee: “She should not have been interviewed, she should have been excluded.”
As Winston Churchill said: “To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day.” Margaret Thatcher also said, “The spirit of envy can destroy; it can never build.”
Contrary to her own statement that her 45 years of service qualified her for the position of chief justice, many believed De Castro’s track record of playing politics should have ruled her out of contention for the position of chief justice.
To be continued
THE MOST POLITICAL CHIEF JUSTICE LEAVES THE COURT
ReplyDeleteBy: Oscar P. Lagman Jr. - @inquirerdotnet 05:04 AM October 16, 2018
Continued
Her voting history in the Supreme Court reflects a bias toward the appointing power. She voted to:
• uphold the midnight appointment of Renato Corona by President Arroyo;
• strike down as unconstitutional President Noynoy Aquino’s executive order creating the Truth Commission for limiting its scope only to the previous Arroyo administration;
• uphold Congress’ creation of a new congressional district to allow President Arroyo’s son Dato to run in another district;
• dismiss the disqualification complaint against President Arroyo’s son Mikey, who ran as a nominee of the party-list of tricycle drivers and security guards;
• stop the impeachment proceedings against then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, a friend of the Arroyos;
• uphold Romulo Neri’s invocation of executive privilege, thereby preventing the Senate from extracting from him Arroyo’s involvement in the NBN-ZTE bribery case;
• uphold the arrest of Sen. Leila de Lima over her alleged involvement in the illegal drug trade;
• acquit Gloria Arroyo of the charges against her;
• force Chief Justice Sereno to go on leave;
• uphold President Duterte’s imposition of martial law in Mindanao;
• uphold his extension of martial law in Mindanao to the end of the year;
• give cognizance to the quo warranto petition against Sereno;
• nullify Sereno’s appointment as chief justice.
Whether she likes it or not, Sereno will always form a part of the De Castro narrative. Instead of being remembered as the first woman chief justice, Teresita de Castro will go down in history as THE SCHEMING WOMAN WHO NULLIFIED THAT DISTINCTION OF SERENO, THAT SHE MAY GAIN IT FOR HERSELF. [all caps mine]
* * *
Oscar P. Lagman Jr. has been a keen observer of Philippine politics since the 1950s.
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/116775/political-chief-justice-leaves-court#ixzz5WDXzgCIM
Gonzalinho
Photo courtesy of Gopal Vijayaraghavan
ReplyDeletePhoto link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/t3rmin4t0r/2365831019
Gonzalinho
ALL CAPS MINE
ReplyDeleteLUCAS BERSAMIN: JUSTICE AND LAWMAKER
By: Oscar P. Lagman Jr. - @inquirerdotnet
05:03 AM December 19, 2018
In his column on Dec. 11, retired Supreme Court chief justice Artemio Panganiban wrote that in July 2016, GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO “WAS ACQUITTED, among other reasons, BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT RULED, FOR THE FIRST TIME, that in a PROSECUTION FOR PLUNDER, THE ‘MAIN PLUNDERER’ MUST BE IDENTIFIED in the information AND PROVEN DURING THE TRIAL before any alleged conspirator can be convicted. Again, this novel ruling was penned also by CJ Bersamin and is now binding jurisprudence in plunder cases.”
In the legal community, the Supreme Court’s pronouncement is law. Every court, including the Supreme Court itself, is bound by the BERSAMIN DOCTRINE.
The retired chief justice thinks the lawyers of former first lady IMELDA MARCOS are GOING STRAIGHT TO THE SUPREME COURT in the HOPE THAT ANOTHER NEW DOCTRINE that WOULD ACQUIT MRS. MARCOS would be handed down by the Supreme Court. That is a distinct possibility given the present composition of the Supreme Court, and with Lucas Bersamin now the chief justice.
In August 2015, then Associate Justice Bersamin penned the decision that “Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime charged, should be allowed independently of the merits of the charge, provided his continued incarceration is clearly shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. Indeed, denying him bail despite imperiling his health and life would not serve the true objective of preventive incarceration during the trial.”
Based on that pronouncement, the Supreme Court ruled that the fragile state of Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile’s health presented a compelling justification for his admission to bail.
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said the decision was contrary to the rule of law. In his dissenting opinion, he wrote that the decision to grant Enrile bail for humanitarian reason “will usher in an era of truly selective justice not based on clear legal provisions, but one that is unpredictable, partial and grounded on the presence or absence of human compassion.” Enrile did not even present his feeble health as an argument for his release from detention.
Leonen surmised the decision was “especially tailored” for Enrile. In my commentary in this space, I wrote that the DECISION was CUSTOM-DESIGNED FOR former president ARROYO. I pointed out that Bersamin, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2009 by Arroyo, proposed the granting of bail to Enrile because of the latter’s “solid reputation in his public and his private lives, his long years of public service, and history’s judgment of him.” Only Arroyo among the many ailing lolos and lolas in prisons at the time could be described similarly.
That is why no human rights lawyer had the audacity to petition for bail for the hundreds of enfeebled septuagenarians and octogenarians languishing in penal colonies and city jails on the basis of the new law, because none of those infirm grandparents had a reputation comparable to those of Enrile and Arroyo; nor has any of them had long years of public service.
That is why when former first lady Imelda Marcos was found guilty of seven counts of graft by the Sandiganbayan, no political adversary of the Marcoses, no high-profile victim of martial law, no political analyst, no ordinary citizen expected her to spend a day in jail.
To be continued
ALL CAPS MINE
ReplyDeleteLUCAS BERSAMIN: JUSTICE AND LAWMAKER
By: Oscar P. Lagman Jr. - @inquirerdotnet
05:03 AM December 19, 2018
Continued
It is said that Supreme Court justices are to interpret the law, not to make the law. But it also said that if the law were that easy to interpret and apply, the Supreme Court would have no cases to decide. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DO MAKE LAW through their reasons for their interpretations. What the Supreme Court should have are justices who are nonpartisan, independent and fair.
In the cases of the grant of bail to Enrile and the acquittal of Arroyo, there were no laws to interpret. LUCAS BERSAMIN SIMPLY WROTE HIS OWN OPINIONS, which recognizably were favorable to his patron Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and HIS COMPLAISANT COLLEAGUES IN THE SUPREME COURT ENDORSED THOSE OPINIONS willingly and gladly to become laws of this afflicted land.
* * *
Oscar P. Lagman Jr. has been a keen observer of Philippine politics since the 1950s.
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/118260/lucas-bersamin-justice-and-lawmaker#ixzz5bUxnajUd
Gonzalinho
ALL CAPS MINE
ReplyDeleteUNREASONABLE DOUBT
By: Joel Ruiz Butuyan - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:04 AM December 17, 2018
Former senators Jinggoy Estrada and Juan Ponce Enrile will both be declared innocent next, following the acquittal of ex-senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. of the heinous crime of plunder.
…The fear is well-founded if one reads the 186-page decision of the three justices who found Revilla innocent. And the anger is warranted if one studies the combined 158 pages of the dissenting opinions of the two justices who found Revilla guilty.
The three former senators were all charged with plundering their pork barrel allotments, known as the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). They were accused of receiving the following kickbacks: P224.5 million for Revilla; P183.79 million for Estrada; and P172.8 million for Enrile.
A common modus operandi was employed by the three men, according to witnesses. The senators conspired with Janet Lim Napoles who created 20 fake nongovernment organizations (NGOs) through which their pork barrel funds were drained. The bogus NGOs had officers and stockholders who were Napoles’ secretaries, drivers, security guards, employees, friends, and family members.
Through their designated representatives, the three senators received their kickbacks in bags of cash from Napoles or her trusted aides. Revilla’s representative was his legislative staff officer, lawyer Richard Cambe.
The pieces of evidence presented in the Revilla case provide the commonalities in all the three cases because the key witnesses are the same.
Prosecution star witness Benhur Luy, cousin and trusted aide of Napoles, testified that Revilla’s pork barrel funds were shared in this manner: Revilla, 50 percent; Napoles, 32-40 percent; Cambe, 5 percent; head of the government implementing agency (IA), 2-10 percent; management fee of the IA, 3 percent. Virtually 100 percent of Revilla’s PDAF went to kickbacks and commissions.
The majority of three justices reasoned that it was “not sufficiently established” that Revilla was part of the conspiracy and that there was no evidence that heactually received the millions in kickbacks given to Cambe.
They ruled thus notwithstanding documents presented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) that “[b]etween 6 April 2006 and 28 April 2010, Revilla and his immediate family made numerous deposits to their various bank accounts and placed investments totaling P87,626,587.63 within 30 days from the dates mentioned in Benhur Luy’s ledger when Revilla, through Cambe, allegedly received commissions or rebates to his PDAF in cash.”
To be continued
ALL CAPS MINE
ReplyDeleteUNREASONABLE DOUBT
By: Joel Ruiz Butuyan - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:04 AM December 17, 2018
Continued
It’s astonishing that the majority was convinced that Napoles and Cambe were guilty of plunder even in the absence of evidence that they had fat bank deposits, while they acquitted Revilla even if the AMLC submitted proofs of his and his family’s large bank deposits that are inconsistent with his statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth.
The conclusion made by the majority—that Revilla’s signatures on the PDAF documents were forged—has so many holes including, among others, the fact that the private handwriting expert who testified was hired and compensated with P200,000 by Revilla himself, and examined mere photocopies of the questioned signatures.
There’s a telling contrast between the two decisions. The MAJORITY DECISION EXAMINED EACH PIECE OF STRONG EVIDENCE against Revilla IN QUARANTINED ISOLATION, and POKED SPEARS OF UNREASONABLE DOUBT AT EACH ONE. In contrast, the DISSENTING OPINIONS WOVE TOGETHER the VARIOUS ACTORS AND EVENTS to COMPLETE A VIVIDLY CONVINCING PICTURE of how the conspirators committed plunder BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
The majority decision paints Revilla as a strange species of politician. He authorized the release of half a billion pesos to finance his antipoverty, livelihood, and agricultural programs. Unlike other politicians, he didn’t cut project inauguration ribbons or meet the beneficiaries to cultivate loyalty and patronage. He closed his eyes for four years while Napoles and Cambe wantonly plundered public funds in his name.
Comments to fleamarketofideas@gmail.com
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/118216/unreasonable-doubt#ixzz5bzHt8Bmc
Gonzalinho
ALL CAPS MINE
ReplyDelete‘PERVERSE RULING’ USED BY PLUNDERERS
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:10 AM December 13, 2018
Allow me to comment on Artemio Panganiban’s column, “More questions on Imelda’s conviction” (12/9/18), which pointed out the fact that it was then ASSOCIATE JUSTICE (NOW CHIEF JUSTICE) LUCAS BERSAMIN WHO INVENTED A “NEW” (I.E., PREVIOUSLY UNHEARD OF) DOCTRINE that led to the acquittal of former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in a plunder case.
Bersamin practically JUNKED the SETTLED RULE IN CRIMINAL LAW that the “ACT OF ONE IS THE ACT OF ALL” and therefore it is irrelevant to determine who the “mastermind” and the mere gofers are in a charge of conspiracy.
As Panganiban said, that perverse ruling is now “binding jurisprudence in plunder cases” — which looters of the people’s money are now invoking in their own cases with alacrity.
The former chief justice may have missed one more fact. THAT SAME BERSAMIN DECISION SET ASIDE an ELEMENTARY RULE in the RULES OF COURT promulgated by the Supreme Court itself which EXPLICITLY PROHIBITS REVIEW of any TRIAL COURT’S RULING DENYING A DEMURRER TO THE EVIDENCE.
That rule requires the accused to proceed presenting his/her own defense pronto.
Arroyo’s lawyer, Estelito Mendoza, went straight to the Supreme Court to seek review of the Sandiganbayan ruling finding sufficient evidence to convict her and therefore denying her demurrer.
Bersamin, who incidentally was appointed to the Supreme Court by Arroyo, seemed to have obliged happily.
ROMANO M. MONTENEGRO, romor_monger@yahoo.com
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/118130/perverse-ruling-used-by-plunderers#ixzz5cRpYWw5R
Gonzalinho
Mabuhay ka, Judge Soriano. You will be remembered by a nation craving for justice, at this time in our history when democracy is under grave threat and where justice has been perverted to persecute those critical of this administration.
ReplyDeleteEnteng Romano III, @entengromano
Philippine Daily Inquirer / October 24, 2018
Gonzalinho
‘SHOCKING CONTRADICTION’
ReplyDeletePhilippine Daily Inquirer / 05:12 AM October 26, 2018
Judge Andres Soriano of Branch 148 of the Makati Regional Trial Court ruled it had “lost jurisdiction” over the coup d’etat case against Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV due to its dismissal with finality in 2011, and denied the bid of the administration’s attack dogs to have Trillanes arrested.
Judge Elmo Alameda of Branch 150 of that same court, which had also dismissed the rebellion case against the senator with finality in 2011, ruled otherwise—apparently to please the powers that be.
The shocking contradiction between those rulings really comes down to a contrast between plain common sense and arrant nonsense. As this paper’s editorial, “The law is vibrant,” (10/24/18) noted, it was “an assault on basic logic,” “an attack against common sense.” The illogic was elementary: The application for amnesty was in fact granted, but that application could no longer be found; ergo, there was never any such application! Soriano saw the sheer stupidity of that proposition. Alameda did not? Duh!
Moreover, as law students, professors and practitioners have been saying all along, a criminal case long dismissed with finality cannot be resurrected. At least we know now which of the two Makati “magistrates” should go back to law school or take remedial law review before he inflicts more mediocrity on our already sickening justice system. How dare he assume he has what it takes to preside over the lives and fortunes of litigants before him!
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines should commence disbarment against Alameda for being such an insult to the legal profession.
RAMON NORMAN TORREFRANCA, rn_torree@yahoo.com
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/116999/shocking-contradiction#ixzz5ladi4eni
Gonzalinho
BRIGHT PEOPLE, NOW MINDLESS ZOMBIES
ReplyDeleteInquirer.net
05:01 AM October 29, 2018
…Anyone with half a brain would see how really stupid and ridiculous it is to ask, say, a naturalized citizen to prove the correctness of the grant of naturalization in his favor by requiring him to produce his (in all likelihood, long gone) application for naturalization!
What is happening to the “bright people” in this country? Why are they acting like mindless zombies?
GRACE PO-QUICHO, gpq_rstu@yahoo.com.sg
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/117062/bright-people-now-mindless-zombies#ixzz5lVhu043V
Gonzalinho
HOW TRILLANES, PROCLAMATION NO. 572 BOTH WON
ReplyDeleteBy: Oscar Franklin Tan - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:08 AM October 29, 2018
…The Supreme Court should upload all trial court decisions attracting attention, such as Soriano’s and the recent conviction of Gen. Jovito Palparan.
This not only promotes fact-checking of news reports, it recognizes judges who produce quality rulings.
React: oscarfranklin.tan@yahoo.com.ph, Twitter @oscarfbtan, facebook.com/OscarFranklinTan. This column does not represent the opinion of organizations with which the author is affiliated.
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/117076/how-trillanes-proclamation-no-572-both-won#ixzz5lVpUvGcZ
Gonzalinho
ALL CAPS MINE
ReplyDeleteCANCEL HIS ‘SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION’
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:28 AM October 25, 2018
Quick, why is Juan Ponce Enrile not in jail again, despite the nonbailable charge of plunder against him?
Because, on Aug. 20, 2015, the Supreme Court voted 8-4 to allow Enrile to post bail on humanitarian grounds, citing his advanced age and supposed frail health.
According to the majority decision, “To ignore his advanced age and unstable health condition in order to deny his right to bail on the basis alone of the judicial discretion to deny bail would be probably unjust.”
Enrile was 91 years old at the time. Among his cited health problems that apparently moved the justices were chronic hypertension, cardiovascular disease, irregular heartbeat, asthma-COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) overlap syndrome, eyesight problems, and historical diagnoses of high blood sugar, high cholesterol, gait or balance disorder, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and an enlarged prostate.
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, in a 29-page dissent, blasted the majority decision as a case of “SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION” that “will usher an era of truly SELECTIVE JUSTICE not based on clear legal provisions.”
Many other aging prisoners, he pointed out, also suffer from health conditions, but “may not have the resources to launch a full-scale legal offensive marked with the creativity of well-networked defense counsel” — unlike the “unbelievably fortunate” Enrile.
Then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales also said the ruling had VIOLATED the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE, as the bail grant was tantamount to a “SPECIAL FAVOR” for the most senior member of the Senate.
And why had Enrile been hauled into jail in the first place, setting into motion this shabby Supreme Court ruling?
Because, along with former senators Jinggoy Estrada and Bong Revilla, he was charged with and put on trial for plunder over his alleged participation in the P10-billion Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam, which saw lawmakers funneling their pork barrel allotment into ghost projects and foundations ran by businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles.
According to the Ombudsman, the budget department released a total of P345 million from 2007 to 2009 as part of Enrile’s PDAF to several agri-oriented agencies he had identified, allegedly for tools and implements, as well as fund grants, subsidies and technical assistance to farmers. Subsequent field validations, however, revealed no such deliveries made to the supposed beneficiaries.
Whistleblower Benhur Luy’s records also appeared to show that Enrile had received commissions, rebates or kickbacks amounting to at least P172.8 million through his chief of staff and fellow PDAF respondent Gigi Reyes — a setup testified to by Reyes’ friend and eventual state witness Ruby Tuason, who allegedly acted as go-between for Napoles and Enrile’s office.
Enrile, free on provisional liberty for the last three years, appears to have recovered splendidly from the slew of ailments he had complained about while in detention.
At the height of the impeachment hearings against former chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, there was even talk that he would join the prosecution team against Sereno — meant to reprise, undoubtedly, his sterling performance at the impeachment trial of Sereno’s predecessor, Renato Corona.
To be continued
CANCEL HIS ‘SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION’
ReplyDeletePhilippine Daily Inquirer / 05:28 AM October 25, 2018
Continued
Last week, he confirmed the exemplary state of his health when he filed his candidacy for senator in next year’s elections, catching everyone by surprise.
Not one survey had factored in Enrile among the current “senatoriables,” on the general belief that he was retired from active politics for good.
But the former Senate president and martial-law implementor said he wanted “to join the fun,” and so is now once again a candidate, at 94.
“All I can say is, physically, I am fit to serve. Mentally, I am more than fit to serve,” he declared.
Well, then. Perhaps the SUPREME COURT SHOULD forthwith RECONSIDER the SPECIAL BAIL IT GRANTED ENRILE, since the object of their commiseration, now well up and about, evidently has no qualms belying the court’s rationale for his release.
As many observers have pointed out, if this man says he is fit enough to withstand the rigors of a national campaign, then surely he is fit enough to stay behind bars while his case is being tried.
Enrile himself revels in being seen as astoundingly sharp and spry for his age — and he is.
Why then, what injustice would there be in canceling the bail of so robust a man and ushering him back to his jail cell, where people on trial for plunder like him belong by law?
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/116990/cancel-his-special-accommodation#ixzz5lacrCML2
Gonzalinho
It is always worth noting who gets to escape justice, and who never gets a second chance.
ReplyDeletePhil Dy @philbertdy
Philippine Daily Inquirer (August 28, 2019)
Gonzalinho