"x x x.
When you have the awesome power of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court used to suppress evidence, how do you arrive at the truth? The Supreme Court has issued a TRO halting the opening of Chief Justice Renato Corona’s dollar deposits, which he has promised to reveal "in due course."
 Grassroots & Governance -- Teresa S. Abesamis: "Theater of the absurd" Grassroots & Governance -- Teresa S. Abesamis:"Marketing management for dev’t" Grassroots & Governance -- Teresa S. Abesamis:"Restoring honor" Grassroots & Governance -- By Teresa S. Abesamis:"Exempted" Grassroots & Governance -- By Teresa S. Abesamis:"Shatter the sacred cow" |
Fortunately, however, the Senate President also allowed the reading of the PAL vice-president’s detailed report of the special favors from PAL into the records, for "whatever appreciation the senator judges would give the information." This seemed to me a shrewd way of giving the prosecution a lesson on how to craft articles of impeachment properly (bribery had not been alleged) while at the same time keeping the options open for the senator-judges to appreciate the report as they saw fit. Recently in a radio interview, the Senate President also challenged the defense attorneys to explain the Chief Justice’s bank deposits, both pesos and dollars instead of making a case out of the imperfect SALNs of other government officials which he said was irrelevant.
The presentations by the defense so far has been tedious bean-counting, mired as usual in technicalities obviously aimed at weakening the prosecution’s case. The defense has not yet tackled the heart of the matter: Can we trust this man Renato Corona to continue leading the Supreme Court in the light of the information that has been revealed, never mind the suppression and technicalities?
Let us use Renato Corona’s own words as ponente in the Supreme Court decision to confiscate some of the Marcos assets. CJ Corona had this to say about technicalities that simply delayed the trial. He wrote:
A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destroys the other. It is rather a contest in which each contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholly trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, asks that justice be done upon the merits. Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier’s thrust.
This brings us now to the issue of how high or low should we set the ethical standards for the Chief Justice of the Court of Last Resort? This involves a decision on who should preside over the judiciary, which has power to make the final decision over life, liberty and belongings of the Filipino people. I was dismayed when the Senate President stated that there should be no difference in standards between the Chief Justice and other government officials. In my view, the Chief Justice, whom, we shall assume, is not a politician, should be governed by moral and ethical standards even higher than that for the president of the country. The Supreme Court, it seems to me, is an arbiter for right and wrong in public life, based on what is provided by the Constitution. Therefore, the justices, and even more so, the Chief Justice, must, like Caesar’s wife, be "beyond reproach." They cannot be just like ordinary mortals because the impact of their decisions makes a difference in the lives of the people and of the nation. They have the power to reverse decisions by the Executive and Legislative branches of the government, if these are deemed to go against the interests of the people, as provided by the Constitution. The moral and ethical standards set for such power demands the highest that we can set, given human frailties; but these cannot be as low as what we might expect from an undersecretary, who can easily be replaced. Replacing a Chief Justice, as we now know, is a tremendous undertaking. Therefore, the qualities of such a person must require not only intelligence, but unquestionable integrity and probity, and especially, wisdom. The government has embarked on an anti-corruption campaign as part of its fight against poverty. The positive signs in the stock market and in foreign direct investments with more forthcoming indicate we are on the right track. Unemployment rates have been reduced. Despite global economic woes, rising oil prices, and one natural disaster after another, our economy is growing; and we have just begun.
If we allow compromises on the impeachment decisions due to mere legal technicalities which have warped the access to truth, we are shooting ourselves in the foot, while our neighboring countries in Asia are on the rise ahead of us. What a pity.
We have the human capital (for both skilled labor and middle and higher management), abundant natural resources, and an open and transparent government that is demonstrably bent on good governance. We are in the midst of the fastest growing region in the world. Can we allow shrewd and crafty lawyers to enable an obviously morally unfit man with little delicadeza, in fact, "a walking constitutional violation" (as a midnight appointee) to head our Court of Last Resort for the next five years? It will make a mockery out of our justice system, which is already a weak link in our system of government. Masdan ang pagkatao (observe the character of this man) as more information trickles in, despite the efforts to suppress evidence. Dapat pa ba siyang manatili sa pwestong marangal at makapangyarihan? (Should he still remain in a position of honor and power?)
Our senator-judges have a heavy responsibility. They cannot merely rely on knowledge of the law or technicalities. As Asians, we know that knowledge is just a component of the human mind. They must also listen to their hearts. They must search deep into their inner core of wisdom.
Renato Corona has betrayed the public trust. It is as simple as that. Therefore, he must go.
