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.

The plodding administration of justice

The plodding administration of justice


Posted 00:02am (Mla time) Feb 27, 2005
By Isagani Cruz
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A12 of the February 27, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer


THERE is another disturbing report, again from Justice Artemio V. Panganiban of the Supreme Court, this time about delay in the administration of justice in this country. He says that there are some 800,000 cases now pending in the lower courts, for which he gives a number of reasons, some of them excuses. He adds that the problem applies as well to the high tribunal, which is itself no paragon of speedy justice. (The comments are mine.)

The Constitution of 1987 prescribes obligatory periods for decision of cases by the various levels of our judiciary, 24 months for the Supreme Court and, unless reduced by it, 12 months for all lower collegiate courts like the Court of Appeals and 3 months for all other lower courts like the regional trial courts and the city and municipal courts (plus the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court).

The Constitution of 1973 also laid down non-extendible periods for the decision of cases by the different courts then, but the Supreme Court practically rendered them useless by holding that they were merely directory, being only procedural in nature. That ruling has been nullified by the present charter, which describes such new periods as "mandatory."

Additionally, Sec. 16 of the Bill of Rights provides that "all persons shall have the right to the speedy disposition of their cases before judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies." And Sec. 14 guarantees to all persons facing criminal prosecution the right to a speedy trial, which is defined as "one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays."

Panganiban says that one-third of the trial courts are vacant, owing mostly to the lack of incentives to practicing lawyers to join the judiciary. The most effective deterrent is the small pay of the judges of such courts compared to the average earnings of most practitioners. One consequence is that some of these low-paid judges increase their income through corruption. Another is incompetence or, as they say in basketball, those who cannot play go to the bench.

It is noteworthy, though, that there still is a considerable number of applicants before the Judicial and Bar Council but not for the courts in the less peaceful areas. In some places, particularly in Mindanao, people prefer to settle their disputes by themselves rather than in the trial courts, which remain idle or vacant. Appointment to these courts is considered hazardous and even life-threatening.

In the Supreme Court itself, according to Panganiban, there are no less than 6,000 pending cases to be eventually decided by its 15 members. Eventually may be forever. There are many ways of delaying a case, as Joseph Estrada's lawyers are demonstrating and Lucio Tan too. The cases against the Marcoses are still slumbering comfortably in dreamland despite public agitation to awaken them.

Only recently, I received a plaintive appeal for my help from the International School Alliance of Educators, which was sustained by the Supreme Court in its petition for equal pay for equal work as the foreign-hire faculty. That landmark decision was rendered on June 1, 2000, and became final and executory on Dec. 12, 2000. To date, it has yet to be implemented because of various efforts of the respondent International School Manila to invalidate it.

ISAE president Raquel David-Ching complains not without reason:

"It has been 10 long years (1995-2005) since Filipino teachers at IS Manila took their case to the courts to achieve equal treatment of Filipinos in their own land. The Supreme Court made a landmark decision on June 2000 and this doctrinal ruling has long since been looked to by countless law students as 'the authoritative principle of law that exemplifies the Supreme Court's adherence to the ideals of social justice.' However, it remains merely an empty bag of words bereft of real meaning when we, the petitioners-teachers-victims continue to be denied real-life justice in accordance with the ruling."

The International School case is only one of the many other cases waiting to be definitely resolved by the Supreme Court. Perhaps it might adopt more effective ways of dealing with them, including a less permissive attitude toward the dilatory tactics of some lawyers, not excluding the big law firms.

As members of the reorganized Supreme Court after Edsa I, we were confronted by as many as 8,000 cases left undecided by our predecessors. We met en banc twice a week and worked overtime even on week-ends at home to reduce that number, which even increased with the restored faith of the people in the new judiciary. As his retirement approached, Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee suggested that the best birthday gift we could offer him was to increase our productivity. We delivered.

I hope the present Supreme Court will do likewise, and without waiting for Chief Justice Davide's retirement in December. It now meets en banc only once a week, presumably because its caseload is lighter than ours. With its improved emoluments and comparatively reduced work, it can redouble its output and make the speedy administration of justice in this country a more approachable goal.

The tragedy of Edsa I

The tragedy of Edsa I


Posted 11:28pm (Mla time) Feb 25, 2005
By Isagani Cruz
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the Febrauary 26, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer


YESTERDAY marked the 19th anniversary of one of the most remarkable events in the history of our country. This was the people power revolution that thrilled the whole world and earned its unbelieving admiration. On Feb. 25, 1986, the Filipino nation redeemed its lost freedom, not through the force of arms and violence. They did this in a massive demonstration of their faith in peaceful reform and the justice of their cause.

Edsa I, as it is proudly remembered, ended more than 13 years of tribulation for the desperately captive nation. Ferdinand Marcos had become the new despot of Asia. Many of his foes were arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned. Congress was abolished and later replaced by a rubber-stamp Batasang Pambansa [National assembly]. The Supreme Court was intimidated into "legitimizing" the dictatorship. Human rights were disdained and violated. Public funds were cold-bloodedly plundered. The ordinary citizens found themselves defenseless under what was called "constitutional authoritarianism."

The Philippines has been subjected to regimented domination before, first by Spain for more than three centuries, by the British in 1762-64, by the United States for close to five decades, and during the Pacific War by the Japanese belligerent troops. Each of these occupations of our country had its particular cruelty that left indelible livid scars on the national psyche. But all these regimes were foreign and so could be easily albeit painfully rationalized.

But the regime of Ferdinand Marcos and his criminal gang was imposed not by foreigners but by fellow Filipinos. They dictated their will upon their own countrymen, not with the ruthless objectiveness of alien tyrants but with full awareness of the maledictions they were visiting on their own people. Marcos knew this as all those who connived with him also did. They knew they were debasing their own race but this did not deter them from their transgressions. This was what made the martial law enforced by Marcos the most heinous rule of all.

The Philippines suffered as the rulers fattened on their iniquities. Erstwhile paupers became instant millionaires because of their ties to Malacañang. Political parties were abolished to give way to the all-powerful KBL party that could do no wrong. Enemies of the New Society were eliminated, many of them murdered without accountability. The Armed Forces of the Philippines became the Armed Forces of the President and his murderous and arrogant defender.

The Filipinos are like the carabao, it is said, patient but only up to a point. When that limit is reached, the placid animal becomes a raging beast. We reached that point after that graceless period of unbearable travail, but our quiet tribulation did not erupt in violence. We did not lose our cool or explode in uncontrolled rage. What we did instead was gather at the Edsa highway, not to raise our arms in anger, but to protest our grievances in peace.

There were a handful of heroes at first, and then they grew to a hundred and then to thousands until it swelled to millions of indignant Filipinos. It was a mixed and unusual crowd that represented a cross-section of the aggrieved nation. Political leaders, simple citizens, jeepney drivers and moneyed businessmen, slum dwellers and the elite, students and their teachers, teenagers with their parents, nuns fingering rosaries with watchful ladies bearing flowers, and, yes, even innocent children playing as in a carnival-all of them met at Edsa to dare the hated oppressor and face his mighty tanks with real but muted apprehension of the dictator's weaponed wrath.

The tanks did come but they did not attack. The soldiers were there but did not fire a single shot. One grandmother in a wheelchair confronted them alone and stopped them on their tracks. The defining moment of the victory of Edsa was when the military capitulated and joined the ranks of the jubilant people. Events swiftly followed with the induction of Cory Aquino and Doy Laurel as the duly elected leaders of the new government. Marcos took his own oath before a fidgety crowd in Malacañang even as a vengeful crowd was rushing at its gates. Soon the despot had escaped to Hawaii, and there was dancing in the streets.

That was what happened during those heady days that climaxed on Feb. 25, 1986. Everyone savored the hope of a new day as the dark night finally ended. The Freedom Constitution would later mandate that all the vestiges of the previous regime would be erased and the rule of law would again reign throughout the land. The economy would be improved for poor and rich alike, criminality would be reduced, social justice would be realized, and real democracy would be restored at last. This was what Edsa I promised.Have all these noble purposes been pursued and realized? Nineteen years since Edsa I, they are still empty reveries to taunt us of that magnificent people power revolt that made us the model of all oppressed nations still dreaming of freedom. The worst mockery of all is that the scoundrels of martial law are still with us, many of them still lording over us as before, like canonized demons enjoying an unholy immunity. That is the ultimate tragedy of Edsa I.

Cleansing our courts

Cleansing our courts


Posted 11:56pm (Mla time) Feb 19, 2005
By Isagani Cruz
Inquirer News Service



Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the February 20, 2005 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer


LIKE a welcome gust of fresh wind was the report from Justice Artemio V. Panganiban that the Supreme Court disciplined last year 56 "hoodlums in robes," in Erap's colorful phrase, for various offenses. He added that as many as 582 judges have been penalized for unethical conduct by the high tribunal since the reorganization of the judiciary in 1986 following Edna 1.

The erring judges, most of them from the lower courts, have been disciplined for violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. The charges against them ranged from dishonesty, bias, ignorance of the law, neglect of duty, grave abuse of discretion, immorality, unbecoming behavior, and other improprieties.

The disciplinary power of the Supreme Court has not been exercised only over the inferior courts, as erroneously believed. Even the superior collegiate courts have not been spared. I recall that a justice of the Court of Appeals was dismissed a year or so ago for "lawyering" for a litigant, and another from the Sandiganbayan was practically required to retire because of his inexcusable delay in deciding many of the cases assigned to him.

Regrettably, both of them were professionally and academically competent, in fact superiorly so, and were otherwise a credit to the judiciary. Without their proven shortcomings, they could even have been in time elevated to the Supreme Court.

During my tenure on the Court, we dismissed two RTC judges who were among the first 10 topnotchers in their respective bar examinations. One rendered a premature decision in favor of an influential defendant; the other, reinstated after having been earlier disbarred, tempted fate once more by tearing from the rollo of a case important documentary evidence in the presence of the clerk of court.

The Supreme Court has itself not been immunized from its drive for reform. In 2002, one of its members was castigated by his colleagues for his negligence in supervising the bar examinations and was denied a portion of his fee as chairman of the examining committee. Many people thought the punishment inadequate, though, including the Association of Retired Justices of the Supreme Court which did not invite him to be a member.

When in 1997 I wrote a brief history of the Supreme Court upon invitation of the Philippine Judiciary Academy, I discussed in my Res Gestae, as I called the work, some serious criticisms of the high tribunal, including the sitting one. Upon reading my draft, it sent me a paper entitled "Suggestions of Individual Members of the Court" who, however, did not choose to identify themselves. They "suggested" that I moderate my language, but I rejected their censorship. I was not going to understate a problem that was known to the whole country.

The book was published by a commercial printer and has long been sold out. But the problem the unnamed "individual justices" wanted to suppress is still with us. Justice Panganiban's report is encouraging, but it is so only because it assures us that the Supreme Court is not slumbering on the complaints against the judiciary. The problem cannot be deemed solved with the discipline of 582 judges since 1986, which may be a notable achievement but is certainly not enough.

The number alone is not even impressive because it translates to only some 30 erring judges a year who have been uncovered and penalized, some only mildly with nominal fines and censure. In light of the common dissatisfaction of lawyers, litigants, and the people in general with our courts of justice, that number is only the tip of the iceberg.

This is truly sad because the majority of our judges, from the lowest to the highest tribunal, are honest and able disciples of the law dedicated to uphold it in the temple of justice. If their decisions have not always been wise or even correct, it is because of their human failings or lack of discernment in discovering the truth. These are imperfections many of us share. It should not justify the blanket condemnation of the judiciary as a shadowy hideaway of robed robbers.

If we want to truly cleanse the judiciary, we should cooperate with the Supreme Court in its efforts to erase the suspicion of its supposed incompetence and questionable integrity. It is a problem we all share. If you have complaints against any judge or justice, or any judicial officer, send them to the high tribunal, which will investigate them, with the assistance of the NBI if warranted. We can lick this problem if we all work together.

Let me repeat, however, what I said when I retired from the Court in 1994:

"Smug conclusions not backed by proven facts or at least an attempt in good faith to verify them militate against the principle that one must be given a chance to air his side before the verdict is pronounced. That is the essence of fair play. It should not be difficult to imagine that unfounded accusations will undermine the faith of the people in the judiciary as the ultimate protector of their rights and liberties. If that faith is lost, the only remaining alternative to judicial action will be private retribution under the lex talionis or the arbitrary adjudication of the mob."