Acquittal by inaction

Acquittal by inaction


Posted 00:22am (Mla time) Mar 13, 2005
By Isagani Cruz
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 13, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer


MANY of us will recall that at the start of the trial of Joseph Estrada before the Sandiganbayan, one of his lawyers was said to have bragged that he could delay the proceedings by at least five years. I never heard him deny the report later, which could mean that it was true.

Assuming that it was merely an invention of some imaginative reporter, subsequent facts are nevertheless validating that arrogant boast. The information against Estrada and his son Jinggoy was filed in 2001, and it is now 2005. Erap's counsel has just started his defense after filing countless dilatory motions.

Erap has been allowed, among other privileges, to transfer from his original detention house in Laguna to the Veterans Memorial Medical Center, to consult a faith healer in Caloocan (under heavy security including a hovering helicopter), to visit his mother, and to go to Hong Kong for surgery on his knees. This could have been performed here by our own competent surgeons but he apparently did not trust his own countrymen.

The case of Lucio Tan is another but similar matter. It began in 1993 with his prosecution for tax evasion in the amount of P25.6 billion. The cases were dismissed in 1999 but the government went to the Supreme Court, which ordered a retrial. At his arraignment recently, the prosecution brought three truckloads of documentary evidence that it hoped the defense would admit under a stipulation of facts. Tan's lawyer refused and insisted that every single document, most of which he had not yet even seen, be pre-marked.

The pre-marking of the voluminous documentary evidence of the government would take at least six months, according to the prosecution, before the trial could begin. Conceivably, the case could last for months and even drag for years, and would surely be appealed to the superior courts, including the Supreme Court, before it was finally decided. The trial judge has, however, ordered the marking to be done in the course of the trial, which may or may not speed up the proceedings.

It may be terminated earlier, of course, if Tan is acquitted by the trial court and can invoke the protection against double jeopardy if the government tries to prolong it. Such an outcome would at least conform to the constitutional policy for the speedy disposition of cases before judicial and administrative bodies.

All this brings to mind the unjustified delay in the decision of many other cases despite the mandate of the Constitution. The most obvious example is the Imelda cases that were begun under the Aquino administration after Edsa I in 1986. Many of these cases are still sleeping in the Sandiganbayan while the Merry Widow is still enjoying her life as if we were still under martial law with the courts still terrified of her.

In one memorable and exceptional case, she was found guilty of graft and corruption by the Sandiganbayan in a decision written by the late Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena. She appealed to the Supreme Court, where the Third Division chaired by Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa himself, affirmed her conviction.

Nothing daunted, she moved for referral of the case to the banc, which not only accepted it but also reversed the Division and the Sandiganbayan. Imelda's acquittal was written by Purisima, with Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Martinez and Quisumbing concurring. The dissenters were Narvasa, Regalado, Davide, Romero and Panganiban, with Vitug for remanding the case to the Sandiganbayan.

The referral was itself a violation of SC Circular No. 2-89 based on the rule that the Supreme Court en banc is not an appellate body that can review the decisions of the Divisions, which act for and by authority of the Court en banc. But the case of the still influential former First Lady was considered an exception in the sound discretion of the Supreme Court.

According to a recent research, there are still 38 civil and criminal cases pending against Imelda in the Sandiganbayan. All of these were filed shortly after the overthrow of the Marcos misrule and the take-over of the Cory Aquino government 19 years ago. But they have yet to be decided despite the inexplicable delay.

The Court has in some cases held against Imelda, as when it ruled that that the secret negotiations between the Marcos heirs and the government regarding the disposition of their alleged ill-gotten was violative of the right to information on matters of public concern. And the high tribunal has also affirmed that the $684 million transferred by the Swiss government to an escrow account in the PNB belongs to the Republic and not Imelda and her children.

But there are still many cases that wait to be decided for or against Imelda, and also her relatives and close associates during martial law. Considering the inordinately long period during which their cases have been slumbering in our courts, including the Supreme Court, the suspicion is growing that the delay in their decision is caused not by mere neglect or indolence of the judges. Some say there could be a deliberate design to in effect acquit these privileged accused by simply not acting on their conviction.

The power of legislative investigation

The power of legislative investigation


Posted 00:36am (Mla time) Mar 12, 2005
By Isagani Cruz
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 12, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer


REP. Roilo Golez, chair of the committee on national defense of the House of Representatives, sent a letter to the editor recently defending the investigation by his committee of Gen. Jacinto Ligot for unexplained wealth.

I had written an earlier column that the probe was essentially for grandstanding rather than in aid of legislation, but he said it was in the discharge of their legislative power of information.

He invoked President Woodrow Wilson's view that the power of information was more important than the power of lawmaking. He also cited University of the Philippines Law Dean Raul Pangalangan who disagreed with critics of legislative investigations in his column last October. Contrary to any insinuation, it was no refutation of my article that appeared in this column only last month.

The fact that Wilson made that statement does not make it Gospel truth. Everyone should know that the real function of Congress is to make laws, with the power of investigation as only incidental to it. Art. VI. Sec. 21 of the Constitution allows both houses of Congress to conduct investigations but only "in aid of legislation."

The meaning of that provision is quite clear. Congress cannot conduct a legislative investigation for the purpose only of informing the public. In republican regimes, the duty to disseminate news on current events and public issues belongs to the privately owned mass media, not the government.

Legislators should concentrate on their responsibility to enact the needed laws to improve the country and solve its problems instead of competing with the private information media.

Entrusting the principal power of information to Congress would threaten and impair the freedom of expression. Competition between legislators and private opinion-makers can only weaken the democratic ethos. The likely victor in this uneven contest would be the legislature with its powerful influence and the public funds subject to its appropriation and disposition.

It is easy to observe the evils of government control of the media in totalitarian countries. The authorities dictate what should be reported and what should be suppressed. The news purveyors of many dictatorial governments should warn us of what would happen if the principal task of Congress were to release, or withhold, information affecting the public welfare.

The punitive action taken against this paper during the Estrada administration should alert us to what could happen to our free publications if they should displease those in authority. The Inquirer lost plenty of advertisements for its refusal to kowtow to that discredited leadership. Some papers profited from the "punishment" of this paper, but it survived and even prospered because of its integrity.

If that outrage we suffered could happen even in an apparently free society, how much worse would it be if Congress were to be vested with the principal power of information?

Congress has been unable to pass many important pieces of legislation in the exercise of its primary responsibility to pass laws. The VAT bill has not yet been approved as of this writing, and the national ID card will probably die a-borning. And all this because, according to Golez, the task of lawmaking must yield to the power of legislative investigation.

Many formal inquiries have been conducted in the past by Congress but we have not been informed if they resulted in the enactment of the needed legislation. Some years ago, the House of Representatives attracted a lot of attention when it inquired into the alleged payment of ransom to some military commanders in Mindanao for the release of certain hostages. There are vague reports about its findings and what statutes, if any, were passed because of the probe.

What was certain was the free publicity and “pasiklab” [showing off] on TV enjoyed by the legislators. The information they received at much public expense did not, as far as I know, improve, correct, modify, supplement, or repeal our existing laws, many of which are dead letters in our statute books anyway.

The Golez committee investigation of General Ligot did not succeed in extracting useful information from the respondent who claimed the right against self-incrimination. Not only was the inquiry ineffectual but it was also unnecessary. The reason is that the Ombudsman and the Armed Forces were already conducting their own investigation in the exercise of their own respective powers. Golez and his committee did not have to get into the act unless their real purpose was to share in the public limelight.

I respectfully suggest that Golez address himself to the principal task of lawmaking instead of acting like a glorified prosecutor. If he really wants to be useful, he can strop the intrusive airplanes flying over Merville Subdivision and oppressing us with their abusive but uncontrolled noise pollution. He has done nothing about it during his past three terms in Congress and up to the present despite the complaints of his constituents. He can do better about this problem than investigating Ligot.

A patriot of our race

A patriot of our race


Posted 01:30am (Mla time) Mar 06, 2005
By Isagani Cruz
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 6, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer


THIS Wednesday will be the 113th birth anniversary of Dr. Jose P. Laurel, who occupies and deserves an honored place in our nation's history. He served with distinction in the three departments of our government, as President of the Philippines during the Japanese occupation, as a member of the Senate before and after World War II, and as a justice of the Supreme Court, where he wielded the most powerful pen, according to Manuel L. Quezon.

In his youth, he enrolled as a pensionado in Yale, where he took special studies in Constitutional Law that was to serve him well as a lawyer, as a law professor, as a magistrate, and in his political career. It was his mastery of this subject that made him the acknowledged authority on the structure and functions of the republican government and set apart many of his decisions as enduring celebrations of individual liberty.

In 1923, as a young secretary of the interior in the cabinet of Governor-General Leonard Wood, Laurel dismissed an American detective for bribery. Wood reversed Laurel and ordered his countryman's reinstatement. Laurel complied but at the same time resigned. So did the Filipino members of the cabinet, as well as the Council of State. The feisty Wood, a former wartime general, knew he had been beaten and soon retired.

One of Laurel's best decisions as a jurist is Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, where he explained the doctrine of separation of powers with such lucidity and brilliance that it has yet to be surpassed by his successors on the Supreme Court. His definition of social justice in the old case of Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 76, decided in 1939, is still studied in our law schools as the classic description of this constitutional concept.

It was out of respect that we all called him the Old Man although he was still young when he passed away at 67. He was especially fond of the Lyceum of the Philippines that he founded and called "the Alexandria of the East." He as president, his son Teroy as the executive secretary, Dean Jose Adeva of the college of arts and sciences, and I as Teroy's assistant, wet-nursed the fledging school. Sen. Pedro Sabido was the treasurer, and Don Claro M. Recto was the dean of our law school, with then solicitor general Ambrosio Padilla as vice dean.

I became a bar reviewer in Political Law because of Dr. Laurel. In one of the classes in the subject, the professor, a well-known "terror," had resigned in disgust over the students' inattention. I reported this problem to Dr. Laurel and said I had taken it upon myself to keep order in the class pending the appointment of the martinet's replacement. The Old Man saw no problem and acted decisively. He appointed me to take over the subject, thus beginning my own specialization of "more and more about less and less," as he put it.

What I remember best about Dr. Laurel was when, as president of our occupied country, he was pressured by the Japanese generals to conscript Filipinos to fight the Allied forces. Laurel refused. Many of us who were of draft age, and our anxious parents as well, were relieved beyond measure when he announced over the radio that not a single Filipino would be compelled to fight for Japan. The kempeitai could have executed him for his defiance but prudently desisted because they knew the whole country was behind him.

It was one of the ironies of Laurel's life that for leading the nation during the travail of the Japanese occupation, he was later accused of collaboration with the enemy. He valiantly defended himself at his trial and would have been acquitted had not President Manuel A. Roxas ended the proceedings with his amnesty proclamation of 1948.

Laurel ran in the 1949 presidential election, which many believe he won but for "the birds and the bees" in Lanao that voted for his opponent, incumbent President Elpidio Quirino. The presumptive winner was vindicated in 1951, when he topped the election for the Senate with an overwhelming majority. During this last term, he authored, over the organized resistance of the Catholics, the law now requiring the study of the works of Rizal in all public and private schools in the country.

Jose P. Laurel Sr. was a striking contrast to some of our present-day leaders who now pay him lip service. He was a true nationalist, not a political lackey of foreign imperialists. He was erudite in law and philosophy unlike the presumptuous ignoramuses and misfits in the Senate today. His unblemished integrity and courage of conviction are an angry indictment of the current immoral and dissolute public service. He was, without question or exaggeration, a patriot of our race.

A patriot of our race

A patriot of our race


Posted 01:30am (Mla time) Mar 06, 2005
By Isagani Cruz
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 6, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer


THIS Wednesday will be the 113th birth anniversary of Dr. Jose P. Laurel, who occupies and deserves an honored place in our nation's history. He served with distinction in the three departments of our government, as President of the Philippines during the Japanese occupation, as a member of the Senate before and after World War II, and as a justice of the Supreme Court, where he wielded the most powerful pen, according to Manuel L. Quezon.

In his youth, he enrolled as a pensionado in Yale, where he took special studies in Constitutional Law that was to serve him well as a lawyer, as a law professor, as a magistrate, and in his political career. It was his mastery of this subject that made him the acknowledged authority on the structure and functions of the republican government and set apart many of his decisions as enduring celebrations of individual liberty.

In 1923, as a young secretary of the interior in the cabinet of Governor-General Leonard Wood, Laurel dismissed an American detective for bribery. Wood reversed Laurel and ordered his countryman's reinstatement. Laurel complied but at the same time resigned. So did the Filipino members of the cabinet, as well as the Council of State. The feisty Wood, a former wartime general, knew he had been beaten and soon retired.

One of Laurel's best decisions as a jurist is Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, where he explained the doctrine of separation of powers with such lucidity and brilliance that it has yet to be surpassed by his successors on the Supreme Court. His definition of social justice in the old case of Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 76, decided in 1939, is still studied in our law schools as the classic description of this constitutional concept.

It was out of respect that we all called him the Old Man although he was still young when he passed away at 67. He was especially fond of the Lyceum of the Philippines that he founded and called "the Alexandria of the East." He as president, his son Teroy as the executive secretary, Dean Jose Adeva of the college of arts and sciences, and I as Teroy's assistant, wet-nursed the fledging school. Sen. Pedro Sabido was the treasurer, and Don Claro M. Recto was the dean of our law school, with then solicitor general Ambrosio Padilla as vice dean.

I became a bar reviewer in Political Law because of Dr. Laurel. In one of the classes in the subject, the professor, a well-known "terror," had resigned in disgust over the students' inattention. I reported this problem to Dr. Laurel and said I had taken it upon myself to keep order in the class pending the appointment of the martinet's replacement. The Old Man saw no problem and acted decisively. He appointed me to take over the subject, thus beginning my own specialization of "more and more about less and less," as he put it.

What I remember best about Dr. Laurel was when, as president of our occupied country, he was pressured by the Japanese generals to conscript Filipinos to fight the Allied forces. Laurel refused. Many of us who were of draft age, and our anxious parents as well, were relieved beyond measure when he announced over the radio that not a single Filipino would be compelled to fight for Japan. The kempeitai could have executed him for his defiance but prudently desisted because they knew the whole country was behind him.

It was one of the ironies of Laurel's life that for leading the nation during the travail of the Japanese occupation, he was later accused of collaboration with the enemy. He valiantly defended himself at his trial and would have been acquitted had not President Manuel A. Roxas ended the proceedings with his amnesty proclamation of 1948.

Laurel ran in the 1949 presidential election, which many believe he won but for "the birds and the bees" in Lanao that voted for his opponent, incumbent President Elpidio Quirino. The presumptive winner was vindicated in 1951, when he topped the election for the Senate with an overwhelming majority. During this last term, he authored, over the organized resistance of the Catholics, the law now requiring the study of the works of Rizal in all public and private schools in the country.

Jose P. Laurel Sr. was a striking contrast to some of our present-day leaders who now pay him lip service. He was a true nationalist, not a political lackey of foreign imperialists. He was erudite in law and philosophy unlike the presumptuous ignoramuses and misfits in the Senate today. His unblemished integrity and courage of conviction are an angry indictment of the current immoral and dissolute public service. He was, without question or exaggeration, a patriot of our race.

Judicial notice

Judicial notice


Posted 11:28pm (Mla time) Mar 04, 2005
By Isagani Cruz
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the March 5, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.


ON JAN. 27, 2004, former Vice President Salvador H. Laurel died in the United States. This was widely reported in this country in newspapers, on radio and television, and by word-of-mouth among the people at large. He was the subject of editorials and opinion columns and many necrological services, including the one held officially in the Senate, where he had served as a member. In Proclamation No. 544 dated Jan. 29, 2004, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, through Executive Secretary Alberto G. Romulo, extended fitting recognition to Laurel, designated a period of national mourning for him, and authorized his interment at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

At the time of his death, Laurel was facing a criminal case in the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court, where he had moved for a reinvestigation, which was granted by the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan. On Aug. 20, 2004, it issued the following Order:

"Considering that this case is still under reinvestigation in the Office of the Special Prosecutor, and notwithstanding the fact, of which the Court takes judicial notice, that Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel is already dead, the Court hereby directs the Office of the Special Prosecutor to terminate reinvestigation and to submit its resolution thereon at the soonest possible time." (Stress supplied.)

(According to the Rules of Court, among the subjects of judicial notice without the introduction of proof are "the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments" and "all similar matters which are of public knowledge.")

On Oct. 29, 2004, the same Division ordered as follows:

"Considering that the Court has not yet been furnished with a copy of the death certificate of accused Salvador H. Laurel, the pre-trial set for today is hereby cancelled and reset to January 28, 2995 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon," (Stress supplied.)

The latest Order from the Division dated Jan. 28, 2005, is couched in sterner language and says:

"When this case was called this afternoon, neither Atty. Jose A. Oliveros nor Atty. Leon L. Asa, counsels for the accused, appeared. Hence, Atty. Oliveros and/or Asa are hereby directed to explain within ten (10) days from receipt hereof why they should not be cited in contempt of Court for their failure to appear for today's pre-trial despite due notice. They are also ordered to submit to this Court a certified copy of the death of accused Salvador H. Laurel." (Italics mine.)

The Order was signed by Justices Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada, as chair, Roland B. Jurado and Teresita V. Diaz-Balgos as members.

Although perplexed, Oliveros and Asa dutifully filed their Explanation, where they respectfully submitted that their representation as lawyers of the late Salvador H. Laurel was lawfully terminated upon their former client's death.

They invoked jurisprudence that "a dead client has no personality and cannot be represented by an attorney." (Lavina c. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 691, citing Barrameda v. Barbara, 90 Phil. 718, and Caisip v. Cabangon, 109 Phil. 150.)

They added that "the attorney for a party ceases to be the attorney of such party upon the death of the latter." (Lawas v. Court of Appeals, 146 SCRA 173, citing People v. Florendo, 77 Phil. 16.)

May I add that even under the ordinary rules on agency in general, among the causes for the extinguishment of the contract is the death of the principal or the agent. (Civil Code, Art. 1919.)

As required, they furnished the Division a copy of the Death Certificate of Salvador H. Laurel issued by the County of San Mateo, California, USA. They also sent a Transit Permit from its Health Services Agency for his cremated remains plus a Report of Death and an Affidavit regarding the shipment of such remains executed by our own Consul General Delia Meñez Rosal.

As an added precaution, they also attached a copy of Proclamation No. 544 just in case the Division had not read or at least heard about it.

As the Division had already taken judicial notice of Laurel's death in its Order dated Aug. 20, 2004, one can only wonder why it still subsequently ordered his former lawyers to submit copies of his death certificate.

The justices, as superior members of the judiciary, could not have been unaware of the jurisprudence cited by Messrs. Asa and Oliveros. That is why I cannot understand the threat in that Order toward the lawyers who had correctly assumed that their services for the late Laurel had already terminated with his death.

I would agree that the death of an ordinary client, of which judicial notice cannot be taken, must be reported by the former lawyer for the information of the court. But former Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel was no ordinary client; no less than the President of the Philippines, the Senate, and most of the rest of the nation, knew of his death.

Submission of the required Explanation with all the annexes must have involved not inconsiderable time and expense that could have been avoided if the members of the Fifth Division had not uselessly preoccupied themselves with the trivial issues in this case. May I say, with all due respect, that the more serious questions before their Division should have claimed their preferential attention.