In the convoluted halls of justice, where every tick of the clock carries the weight of countless lives, one truth remains paramount: Justice delayed is justice denied. Each moment justice stalls, hope diminishes, and the cries for equity risk fading into whispers unheard. In this realm, prompt and decisive action isn’t just a procedural necessity – it’s a moral duty.
Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) punished a judge who was found guilty of simple misconduct and neglect of duty in the Leila De Lima case. But what were the adverse consequences of an offense deemed so simple that it warranted only a P36,000 fine and a stern warning to the erring judge? It caused delays in De Lima’s bail petition, prolonging her detention in jail for nearly two and a half years.
Here’s a glimpse into De Lima’s life in detention, excerpted from Rappler’s De Lima: One Year of Living and Surviving in Jail:
“In her small cell, [Senator Leila De Lima] has a single bed, a stand fan, a few pieces of monobloc chairs, 5-small plastic boxes for her clothes, a full-length mirror, a 5-layer bookshelf, a tiny foldable side table, a desk filled with documents and books, hardly giving her space to move, and a few more boxes of books.
“She has a microwave oven, too – so far, the only electronic appliance she’s allowed. She had requested that her staff bring her home-cooked food daily for safety reasons.
“The senator has a small ice chest, which her staff fills with store-bought ice daily.
“In a tiny bathroom, a toilet bowl, a pail of water, and a dipper are the only notable fixtures.
“She usually starts her day between 5 and 5:30 AM by praying and reading the Gospel. De Lima said she has become a ‘serious’ Bible reader.”
The crux of her being in jail: “De Lima, you are finished. Tapos ka na.” Those were President Duterte’s spine-chilling words then. As Chair of the Commission on Human Rights, De Lima spearheaded the investigation of extrajudicial killings carried out by the so-called Duterte Death Squad in Davao, where Duterte held dominion as mayor for more than two decades.
Undoubtedly, such a bold investigation got on Duterte’s nerves. Not only did he put her in jail but also seek to cut her dignity down to size: “She looks nice… Fighter talaga,” nastily referring to deepfake sex videos then.
To give credit where it’s due, I commend our SC justices for their recent judgment - better late than never - after having been scared stiff back when Duterte fear factor ran the judicial show. However, I could have hero-worshipped them had they seized the moment to undertake an extraordinary job that would have immortalized their names in the annals of Philippine history.
I’m speaking of a missed opportunity to be great on one particular monumental case in the past: the disqualification case versus Bongbong Marcos during the 2022 presidential election.
Let’s revisit this case and its tacit recourse, articulated by two former justices of the Supreme Court making a case for the disqualification of Bongbong Marcos’ candidacy during the presidential election:
“Bongbong Marcos is still a certified convict who is disqualified to run for president of the Philippines, to vote, and to participate in any election of the country.” - Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio
“If a candidate’s COC is cancelled, he [Marcos Jr.] cannot be substituted because cancellation legally means that the certificate of candidacy (COC) was void from the very beginning and deemed never to have existed. Thus, the votes cast for the erstwhile candidate [Marcos Jr.] would be considered “stray” and not be counted. The candidate getting the highest number of votes [VP Leni], excluding the stray votes, would be declared the winner.” – Former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban
In basketball lingo, our nation's SC missed the last two-minute buzzer beater slam dunk. As the dry and trite line goes: "The rest is history."
In retrospect, I wrote in my May 27, 2022, ATABAY article Democracy = Numbers + Rule of Law about a similar dilemma faced by the Indian government. Here’s an excerpt from the Indian Supreme Court ruling summation:
“The Constitution prevails over the will of the people [election results]. The will of the people as expressed through the majority party PREVAILS ONLY IF IT IS IN ACCORD WITH THE CONSTITUTION.”
Pratik Patnik, a lawyer and constitutionalist spelled out the essence of such a bold ruling in his country:
“The [Supreme] Court… struck some sacred chords resulting in one of the best tunes to have come out of its hallowed halls.
“[D]emocracy should be distinguished from majoritarianism. One of the lesser-known facets (unfortunately) of democracy is that it is not only the rule of the majority but also has within its folds one of the most sacred epithets known to humankind – The Rule of Law."
Democracy = Numbers + Rule of Law
“If there is no rule of law circumscribing the numbers in that equation, what we are left with is no more than the rule of the mob. History is peppered with examples of the majority going horribly wrong. Hitler was ‘elected’.”
Food for Thought: Is the infamous 32 million votes (minus the rule of law since Bongbong Marcos should have been disqualified) the rule of the mob?
Looking back, the day after the 2022 presidential election, many raised questions to search for answers to the seeming divinely cued constant 68:32 ratio between the votes for Bongbong Marcos and VP Leni - showing an almost perfect linear equation - absolutely incredible in any election.
(Myriad proofs of improbability have been expounded later by Eliseo Rio, Jr. and his TNT, as published in Jarius Bondoc’s series of columns in Philstar.)
But the gods of Padre Faura appeared to have legally kept their distance from the vital issue, probably, due to the highly technical nature of the issue. I could still recall one mocking comment against the opposition coming from the now defunct UniTeam that surfaced amid the widespread skepticism during the heat of the Presidential election: “O, ano naman ang magawa nyo?"
Today, our nation’s Supreme Court faces another monumental dilemma. A petition has been filed for SC to declare the 2025 General Appropriations Act (“most corrupt national budget”) as unconstitutional. The petition, filed by the Duterte minions, alleges several constitutional violations: blank items in the bicameral conference committee report, failure to allocate mandatory funding for Philhealth, and prioritizing non-education-related agencies over the education sector.
Remember the saying “what goes around, comes around”? Well, in the context of the Pinoy popular saying: “Weather weather lang,” somehow, I can only imagine someone remarking somewhere about this petition: “O, ano naman ang magawa nyo?”
So sad. Onli in di Pilipins.
Content & editing put together in collaboration with Bing AI-powered Co-pilot
Head collage photo courtesy of Freelancer and Canva
Other still photos courtesy of Rappler, Manila Bulletin, iStock, and HopeQure
No comments:
Post a Comment