SOLIPSISM AND MORAL GOVERNANCE

By Wilhelmina S. Orozco

It is entirely puzzling to me how an institution with a questionable status of its leader could possibly come up with an objective and neutral decision regarding the very process that is searching for his culpability. Is that not solipsism of the highest order?

Should a self-serving institution be allowed to dispense justice when within itself and the topmost position is the question: “is he morally fit to govern?”

I think it is all right for the Supreme Court to continue deciding case except in the case involving its officials. It would not be able to render a wise judgment considering that the person/s involved are in close proximity to them, have been their colleagues, arguing, discussing and dining with them, too for many years and years, and  whatever kind of relationships they could have developed among themselves.

I know for a fact how a government institution works because I used to work with the Budget Commission  now called the Development Budget and Management Office. as a senior management specialist during martial law. I work, interacted with my co-employees, saw and was told then how some officials had managed to wear rings with several karats of diamonds, how they could manipulate the budget so that they themselves would have a commission from every position created, classified and given a sizeable allocation that ran into millions. Remember that was the time when the “bitter half” of the dictator was also poking her finger into the pie. But as these officials had their heyday shaping the budget and having a slice of the pie afterwards, their underlings also partook of the manna secretly, of course. Closeness to each other produced that secret bonding as they shared common experiences – that of working under the same institution and of enjoying perks to the hilt.

Thus, I cannot see the point how this highest judicial body could even render an objective decision now regarding the impeachment. It is simply impossible. Maybe it should just concentrate on other matters, but definitely not on the impeachment.

Why? Let us ask, who has the moral ascendancy at this time to make that decision on the impeachment case? By moral ascendancy I mean the most ethical body. Our Constitution answers, Congress – the House of Representatives who presented the impeachment case and the Senate Body as the jurors whether the case has grounds or not for conviction of the charged party.

But why Congress? Because Congress is composed of elected officials. No one there sits without having been voted by the people, officially. There is a process for an official to get elected and that is through proper nomination and official elections, meaning to say, the Commission on Elections puts up the nomination period, then the election period, and then the counting of the votes for the individuals elected as officials. Millions of Filipino people of age trek out and vote for their candidates, their leaders whom they want to sit in the august halls of moral governing institutions.

In other words, Congress is composed of morally-fit officials, morally fit meaning their powers come from the people, millions of them. And when we view the impeachment case hearings, we see the people whom we have elected to sit on our behalf and make decisions for us. Should anyone of them choose to backslide, then that official could earn our ire in the next elections and we can say to him or her, “Sorry, your actions while being an official has been found wanting.”

Any which way, Congress is the final arbiter whether an official is fit to govern. On Congress lodges the Impeachment Court. And because it is composed of elected officials, we do not expect everyone to be like lawyers arguing, debating, by the law books but by that body of knowledge they know which they have culled from their interactions with the Filipino people, their own educational backgrounds – whether in law or other fields, and their experiences as leaders with knowledge of what is moral governance for the people.

Ergo, the Impeachment Court must abide by their own understanding of how an official must be impeached, taking cognizance probably of upheld rules of court but not necessarily to be strongly bound by it, as a senator-judge always insists upon it – but by that human understanding of how to perceive whether the impeached official is telling the truth.

How does one know if the impeached person is telling the truth? And how does one get at the truth? Evidences, evidences and loads of them. But should the presentation of evidence go by the books again? Not necessarily. The Impeachment Court has to evolve its own many ways of ferreting out the truth – from the people’s many creative ways, and based on that respect for human rights.

The Filipino people have that right to be morally governed by officials. They rightfully elected officials and so expect that these officials to perform what is right for them. Now the justices of the Supreme Court are not elected by the people but rather appointed by the president. Although they sit in a government position, most of them do not directly view the people as their benefactors but that person sitting in the presidential seat and signing their appointment papers. They are not allowed to sit in the Impeachment Court because they do not go through the election process conducted, led and managed by the people.

Now why was a member/s of the Supreme Court not included in the Impeachment Court? The nature of work of a justice is mental, or supposed to be mental and emotional. By mental we mean that reason is used for analyzing the case and emotions for viewing the charged person with humaneness. As we are spiritually attuned, we would even add that the nature of work is also spiritual as decisions on cases require that of accessing the highest truths that the Great Creator, regardless of faiths, could possibly be rendering on the cases lodged to them for judgment.  

Hence, the Congressional Impeachment Court has the highest moral ground to render judgment on whether an official is fit or unfit to administer the functions of the position to which he/she has been appointed further.

All the senator-jurors are accountable to the people with regard to the decisions they should and would be making in the impeachment case. Millions put them in their seats and therefore, it is the people’s welfare that should be the basis of their decision on the impeachment case at every turn of the trial.

Now, should the current chief justice continue to be employed considering that there are huge questions of his moral fitness to govern? How shall the people reason with regard to the questions that are raised on the floor? What would be their points of view with regard to the wealth that is unfolding before the court? Should the chief justice be given another chance to prove his worth or should he be replaced right away? Is there room for moral reform within the government? Should that reform be undertaken while being in that position?

Unfortunately, we are talking here of the highest position in the magistrate body. The leader must exercise highest moral grounds in terms of conduct, personally and officially. Hence, to be found with an iota of doubt is already a smear on his reputation as a leader and as an official with a governing function for the people. And for the same institution to which he belongs to render judgment on his capability is self-serving instead of people-serving.

Let us remember that every government official is the people’s servant. Hence, there is not even room for so-called objectivity here because the fundamental basis of sitting in the Impeachment Court is to render judgment that will benefit the people. That in itself is already a bias for the people’s judgment.

ARE WE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS?

By Wilhelmina S. Orozco 

Supposing I am a simple vendor plying my wares at Quiapo. Then I happen to pick up a piece of paper containing the bank account numbers which match those being broadcast on television as ill-gotten wealth.

Knowing that the owner is highly powerful and could take revenge at me, I decide to give it to the officer who is investigating the case of that powerful guy. I don’t want to be identified as the giver and so I let the officer take over that function of using the paper as evidence to convict the high and mighty.

Do I do the right thing by giving that piece of paper to the investigator? Is that piece of paper admissible or not as evidence of corruption?

The paper per se is evidence but is the manner of having gotten the paper legal and if not,  could that nullify whatever positive results there could be from the investigations?

According to legal procedures it is illegal. The high and mighty would cry: “This is transgression of my human rights to due process.” Is it?

Where is justice in this case – should it rest on the high and mighty or those who have been deluded into thinking that they must empower the former in order to make the wheels of justice run smoothly in our country?

Up to what point should we be legalistic – sticking to every letter of the law – and reject all references to the realities of our society?

What are these realities? The high and mighty has the means to protect themselves always, to hire high caliber lawyers to defend them, and to use their education to argue their way in courts, among others. In fact they can even get appointed to lucrative positions based on their class and wealth. But the lower classes have only their purest intentions and limited resources to overcome all obstacles to obtaining a good life.

Now, should the lower classes be deprived of their roles in the search for truth, and be told to just watch the proceedings and keep quiet?

In our democratic set-up the lower classes have voted into office their representatives – meaning those who would represent them in making the government work for their interest and to insure that justice could be meted out at every instance where the people’s welfare is at stake. The representatives are now the prosecution team trying the case against the Chief Justice.

So how fare now the prosecution? Should they be faulted for having used a piece of evidence given by a little lady to show the bank accounts of the Chief Justice?

To my mind, the discussions on the manner by which the numbers of the bank accounts have been discovered are too tedious and peripheral to the questions which are: did the CJ and his family amass wealth beyond their means? Occupying the highest position in the Supreme Court, is he still trustworthy to make the wheel of justice roll in favor of the righteous? Has he been righteous himself?

As stated in the beginning by the Senate President, he would allow flexibility in the application of rules. As realities in our country are different from those in other affluent countries where the poor who would testify against erring rich can be granted protection right away, and where legal discussions can even be stretched to include the manner by which evidences are gathered, it is high time to expect that the impeachment court provide the broadest latitude for gathering the super finest evidences that could pinpoint the truth in all the charges.

Besides, banks are not required to volunteer information on any holder of bank deposits. It is the non-government organizations, media and advocates who exert effort at unearthing anomalies and scandals. And so, anyone looking for bases of malfeasance would need super x-ray eyes to see through everywhere.

The defense said that they would reveal the bank deposits in due time. I really cannot fathom the meaning behind that statement. I suspect that they mean something else.

They are not revealing the truth now because, 1.  they are busy gathering funds from various sources that could back up their having so much wealth stashed in the banks; 2. they have the trust and confidence of the Senate President and other senator-judges so they could take their sweet time to give us the real score on the wealth of the CJ; 3. they are privileged, have the luxury of time and no one can make them immediately respond to demands for this and that revelation of evidences. Corollarily, they have the permission to let justice wait for that right moment to reveal what should be revealed;.and 4. the prosecution should not hurry them up. "You charged us; so you go look for the evidences yourselves. Don't pressure us;" 

If any of the reasons above are their real motives, and they get the nod of the judges, why then are we still wasting our time watching the proceedings?

Evidently the defense has been emboldened by the stoppage of the revelation of the dollar bank accounts and so now, the CJ is on the offensive - branding the prosecution, some senator-judges, and Malacanang with conspiracy to "persecute him." Is he really being persecuted?

Isn't it incumbent upon any high and low government officials to reveal the amounts and their sources of income especially if these do not match what they are supposed to be receiving?

What is the number of hours that a government employee is supposed to render in office? 8 hours a day, times five days equals 40 hours a week. Or that should be 40 x 51 weeks, equals 2040 hours in one year. In the trial on February `13, 2012, the bank manager of Philippine Savings Bank said that the deposits of the CJ was P2M and P8M or P10 million in one year. P10 million divided by 2040 hours, that would mean he was earning P4,901.9608 per hour.

Now what kind of business could give him that much money beyond the hours that he is supposed to be working?

But let us say that he overworked his body and looked for other means to amass wealth after office hours. Say, he gets 6 hours sleep every night. So, 8 hours of work plus 6 hours = 14 hours. So then he has ten hours more to use to generate high income. Is that really possible?

Now as chief magistrate, should he not devote time to thinking about the cases that are being decided day in and day out at the Supreme Court instead of negotiating business? Is he not reading voluminous papers of decisions? Does he not read and review decisions on the various cases by the three divisions, as well as go around looking into the problems of the minor courts of the country?

Now if we have a business-minded SC chief magistrate, instead of someone fully devoted to the ins and outs of the courts, could this be the reason that our  system for leading a righteous life is not really that ideal, and that so many people are crying for justice?

Meanwhile, some bishops are saying -- "Let the truth come out." Should they not focus on the CJ instead and tell him "CJ, open up. Don’t keep us in the dark over your true colors. You are supposed to lead by example."

To my mind, the genuine and valid questions that should be posed to the bank manager and president are: will you show us the original certificates of deposit of the peso accounts, instead of a system-generated listing of the bank accounts?. In those certificates I am sure would be the listing of the amounts deposited, up to how long they would earn interest, the name of the depositor, and the interest the deposit would earn for the period that it would stay in the bank.

That listing of the bank accounts reported on by the bank manager of the Philippine Savings Bank could have been tampered electronically by any IT expert knowledgeable on how to make anything appear to his or her liking. Hence that piece of evidence is nothing compared to the actual certificates of deposits the original and/or duplicate of which are given to the depositor while the triplicate is kept by the bank. 

May I suggest, by the way, that to speed up the process, why doesn't the questioning go this way, "ms. Bank Manager, kindly tell us the number of the account, the date it was opened, the amount of money that was initially deposited, and the ending balance as of 31 December ___. If there was a big withdrawal, tell us when it was, and if it was re-deposited to another account, etcetera. is this possible?

In case we miss the point of holding the impeachment case, here are the definitions of justice by Mr. Webster:

justice: 1 the quality of being just; moral rightness

2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim

3. the administering of deserved punishment or reward

4. the administration of what is just according to law

5. a judge or magistrate

Magistrate means an officer charged with the administration of law.

Whose law? That we can ask again and again in this case. Is it his law or that of the Filipino people's?

WEAK LINK

WEAK LINK

By Wilhelmina S. Orozco

In war, everything is possible. The aim of each party is annihilation, obliteration of each other. And so, fisticuffs, bows and arrows, spears, swords, knives, and even dynamites and bombs become common weapons. Most recently,  some countries like North Korea and Iran have admitted to developing the nuclear arms, tacitly hinting to use them against countries with which they are not compatible, politically. However, nuclear arms know no boundaries. Once they are launched on air, they could engulf the whole planet and so, it could spell disaster for all of us. Thus we have that campaign for nuclear disarmament all over the world. I got involved in this as early as 1981 when I joined European women in encircling the British camp to campaign the use of nuclear arms in any field of combat. 

Along the same vein, I cringe whenever I recall my discussion with one inventor of bullets. He was so proud of his invention as he said: “It is a very powerful invention because once it hits its target, which is the human body, then it would recoil inside and destroy it totally.”

Shocked beyond belief, I could not speak up and appreciate his invention although we had belonged to the same association of inventors. I just stood there wondering how on earth he could describe his invention as if it were just any device. Why did I react that way is because I am a humanist and do not believe in war of any kind, least of all, of manufacturing bullets, no matter if they were developed creatively and have a great usage for the military and police departments and for generating export earnings as well,.  

Anyway, we are now trying by all means to be democratic as can be gleaned from the process -- that  impeachment case at the Senate  – to convict or not to convict the chief justice for – among so many charges – using his position to amass wealth. So many arguments, rebuttals, and rebuffs are flying about. But deep within, I can see that there are interpersonal conflicts going on which could be disastrous to the prosecution.

As in any war, there could be spies who could infiltrate the camps, if not the ranks of the enemy. These spies are knowledgeable about being spies and so could appear as if they were really for the members of that camp that he/she is penetrating. But in the case of the impeachment court, the prosecution could have within it, not a spy but of a weak link, that person who could be the worm who could weaken, lessen the power of the group to argue its case consciously or unconsciously. 

For example, that weak link could be playing to the crowd, acting as if he were an actor wanting to get an award for a performance. With a TV camera which could record his actuations, the more he would act as if he were the major actor of a drama which is being broadcast nationwide, or even worldwide through the web. And so he just yaks and yaks away, no matter who gets harmed, ridiculously forgetting that he ought to be working for the prosecution.

Or that weak link could be making himself hellish to the jury so that they would vote against the prosecution, or they would see less reason for voting in favor of the argument of the prosecution no matter how meritorious their arguments are. In other words, he could appear so obnoxious that the prosecution would get the axe and their arguments no longer viewed objectively. 

Hence, in this case, I think that the prosecution should already alert its ranks, examine who that weak link is, and find out, on a 24-hour basis, why he is acting that way.

Find out also his personal life – are there some unresolved issues in his personal life so that he is acting this way and trying to look as if he were a clean and chaste individual who could see the “rotten ways of the prosecution?” Didn't he criticize the position of the prosecution in his first appearance?

Here we can see that legalism has limits and that the socio-political and cultural make-up of the parties have to be examined also, in order to come up with fool-proof stands, with tight cases that would insure that the people’s will becomes paramount.

Indeed, politics is a very difficult field to tackle.  But with practice, one gets to know and not only that, should know that, the process is not everything. 

Woe to us if the prosecution loses its case because of that weak link.

CRYING FOR JUSTICE

So many questions have been raised. So many answers have been presented. How long will it take for people to understand that the highest magistrate has to be measured in terms of being the prime model for just actions? How long will it take for everyone to accept that there are no “ifs” nor “buts” when dealing with the reputation and honor of the highest position in the judiciary? That honor has to be measured for its chasteness and not by the strength of an iota of excuse that can be found in the laws?

How can a chief magistrate miss out on reporting all of his assets? Hasn’t he honed his skills in dealing with papers especially those that require evidence? Hasn’t he developed his meticulous eyes to see every space in that Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Networh could be a cause for his suspension, dismissal or expulsion if one item there were false? Didn’t he know that even if his condominium suffered from typhoons, but since it is concrete and therefore can be easily redecorated to improve its facilities if it had really suffered from them, then he should not have accepted a P10M discount? Didn’t he know that being loyal to his appointer more than the people of the Philippines is a sign of lack of self-confidence in his ability to be a member of the Supreme Court and therefore he should resign at once in order to spare his future of  being more maligned?

If we are just trying the case of an ordinary employee or official up to the middle level management, sure we can dispense of so many rules and regulations governing ownership of wealth. But for even a milligram of doubt to surface over the actuations of the chief of all chiefs of the judiciary is to already rattle the stability of the justice system in our country.

It means that we can endure injustice for sometime, or maybe all the time. It means those who are waiting for true justice in their own cases can wait awhile; after all, the chief magistrate has his own problems to face up to, or maybe he is signing checks and contracts instead of penning decisions. It means every man, woman, elderly, disabled, and child who have a case in court need not bother too much about getting justice themselves. They just have to use connections again, and they must earn big in order to be able to pay for top caliber lawyers, no less than a former associate justice to defend them in court.

Huh? Have we gone berserk? Is this what we are aiming at in our society? A muddled-thinking judiciary not knowing when a case is unjust or just? Why, what makes the CJ an exception to the rule that they must live simply, that their relatives must exercise caution in flaunting their wealth, that all of them must show themselves as examples of committed individuals who would put the welfare of the people above all else and not of their benefactors?

Maybe we must meditate, and meditate everyday, and more often in order for us to access the deepest pure intentions that the universe is giving us. Yes, I believe that every individual has that innate goodness to discern what must be done, what is good for everyone. We should not be carried away by titles, but rather by that moral compunction to truly serve the least have-nots in our society, and foremost of that is to rid our governmental system of “peke,” artificial officials masquerading themselves as “honorable.”

No, we cannot be waylaid anymore. Even if the case is closed in favor of the CJ, he will already carry that mark in the minds of everyone that once upon a time he was indicted, found wanting but due to judicial gobbledygook, was able to go scot free. When he goes around the country, he will be mocked, and spat upon for having lied.

Sure he would be able to keep his wealth intact but the Filipino people’s consciousness, their mindsets do not allow deletions of memories. No, we do not easily forget when we are crying for justice. 

THOUGHTS TO PONDER

“My dear Brethren and Sistren,

I am happy to note that a new wave of moral consciousness is upon us again, a resurgence of that desire to live by the tenets that I have taught you again and again.

Majority of you are now into the intricate path of ferreting out what is right and what is wrong about governance. You are now sincerely thinking and acting in a manner which will make every ruler in our country sensitive to all of your needs.

Truly, I am more than happy to know and see this because in the past, I had to help lead you to confront the issues of the day, to tell you to go to this and that place if only to make your presence felt at the most crucial moments of transition in our country, from one-man rule to that democratic system where everybody will have a voice and that voice be heard to the highest rungs of rulership.

It matters less that a government functionary had malversed the funds, had amassed wealth behind the scenes, connived with certain corrupt powers themselves. What matters most is that our minds are awakened to the reality of acting against all of these that run counter to our Christian beliefs.

No matter what they have done, they will receive judgment upon their twilight years. Those rulers who led the people to moral degeneration shall receive my wrath upon their transit to the other life – and who knows what other soul shall envelop them – the soul of an animal, a python, or any other hideous being deserving of hell.

Yes, I fully uphold your being immersed in this exercise of weeding out the negative from the positive elements in our system. It is high time that you have done so. But more importantly, you are performing a noble role now because it is getting imbedded in your consciousness as well that every individual counts in our society and whatsoever you have done to the least of them in my name and the name of all the Gods and Goddesses in the universe you have done so to me.

Let Christianity ring and all believers embrace everyone in the name of Jesus. Let Buddhism shine its lights upon us. Let Islam be the waving flag and beacon light in the Muslim world to stop all acts that kill life, that inhibit the free expression of all. Let all moral truths descend upon us, regardless of religion.

For only in this instance will that breath of life be most meaningful for all of us.

So be it.”

Dear Folks, what do the departed moralists of our society think now that we are going through this trial of the highest magistrate of the land who is now cast in all kinds of doubts as to his moral capacity to lead that search for truth?

I have written the above to show that those who led us before are still watching us and are now more enlightened ever and happy to see us working together to show to ourselves that we are capable of setting up standards as to who and what kind of people should lead us. No, we are no longer timid lambs who would follow every order and command that would only throw us into the pits of darkness and ignominy. Instead we have become beings with that third eye to see the souls of everyone and foresee the consequences of every action.

How I wish I had heard better speeches at the pulpit denouncing in clearest terms what are transgressions in moral governance. Instead we hear only the bitterest of thoughts about women using contraceptives. How narrow indeed. What charlatans.

Is not being materialistic a bigger crime than women taking and controlling our bodies – making sure that we have healthy bodies to carry lives in our wombs, and that we can assure every babe that comes into this world a safe, healthy and vigorous existence?

Ah, the road is still long for us to tread and then know for ourselves, our own morality so that every time we look at each other, we know we are seeing God in everyone – that each one is capable of doing good to each other so that that breath of life in every living being shall be regarded more and most meaningfully. 

May the hands of all Gods and Goddesses guide us always. 

INTELLECTUAL ARROGANCE IN THE COURTHOUSE

As we view the impeachment case of the Chief Justice, unraveled also is tne intellectual arrogance of personalities who brought up their credibility from the academe and stints in the judiciary.

What is intellectual arrogance? It is exercising one's intellectual with too much pride, putting down people in their midst to make them kowtow to their ideas obediently, possibly blindly.

Is it totally wrong to be intellectually arrogant? There is nothing wrong with being an intellectual, although there are people who put up themselves as intellectuals -- actually pseudo intellectuals, parading their thoughts as if they were biblical truths when actually, they are just coating their words with the English language to show they know how to speak it. But examine the meaning of their thoughts and you will see just a pragmatic mind and nothing more.

Okay, we started with intellectual arrogance. What is wrong with that then? Majority of our people speak Pilipino and can hardly understand the English language. This is why the Senate is being conducted in Pilipino. And yet, the arrogance of some sectors has brought down the self-esteem of the people -- why because of course, they are pro-prosecutors. They are for conviction of those, not just the CJ but all others--  who amassed, have amassed and continue to amass wealth while in office.

Now to hear someone talk down to a member of the prosecution panel is like piercing the heart, stabbing the innards of that very core of patriotic feeling we have for the changes we want in this country.

It is showing us that what matters most are not the core of what we feel but how we say things. Form over substance.

That is not how the Filipino people feel and think. That's not how we want the directions of changes should happen in this country.


We are all in this exercise together. And should the CJ be found to be at fault, then by all means, let him be a good gentleman who will accept his fault and peacefully give way to the transitions needed in this country. But let us not use this exercise for flaunting our intelligence, our strong memory of every piece of legislation that can catch a criminal or any offender, but rather let it be a process where we are standing together to see how we can strengthen democratic practices in our country work, how the people's voices and thoughts shall be heard and followed.

So be it

TOO COSTLY TO FEAR

Who's afraid of losing multinational companies that will be forced to retreat to their home shores due to withdrawal of tax credits for business outsourcing?


We have a lot of resources in our midst -- on land, on sea, and everywhere -- our people. Who's afraid? Why be afraid?

We need good managers, administrators with good technical skills, managerial skills, financially savvy and a lot of heart. We need one especially with the last because at this time, our people are bleeding -- trying to eke out a living and trying to build a future for their children, to the extent of leaving the country to find a job abroad that will realize their dreams.

No, no fear. That's too costly. 

WALANG KONEK

WALANG KONEK

Sinulat ni Wilhelmina S. Orozco

The heat is on. Umiinit na ang Impeachment case laban sa chief justice. Tumitindi na ang pagpapalitan ng argumento, sa punto pa lang ng paglalatag ng ebidensiya sa mga charges na nagpayaman at gumawa ng hindi matuwid na pagkilos habang nasa puwesto ang chief justice.

Bilang pinakamataas na pinuno ng isang institusyon na dapat ay magbigay ng hatol para magkaroon ng katarungan sa bansa, napakahalagang malinis ang puwesto ng chief justice.

Ano ba ang dapat bantayan sa panonood ng kaso? Unang-una na, dapat tingnan natin ang pag-iisip ng mga tao rito: ang mga huwes-senador at senadora; ang prosecution at defense panels, at ang pangulo ng Senado. Iba ang legal na pag-iisip sa ordinaryong pag-iisip. Ang legal na pag-iisip ay nakatuon sa maraming bagay tulad ng facts o katotohanan, ang mga nangyari; sa mga relasyon ng mga taong nasasangkot sa kaso, at marami pang iba subali’t higit sa lahat, nakatuon din ito sa lohika ng argumento o pagdedebate—ibig sabihin, makatuwiran ba ang pag-iisip?

May mga uri ng pag-iisip sa legal na mga sitwasyon na hindi makatwiran. Nakapanlilinlang. Tingnan natin sa ibaba ang mga halimbawa na hango sa kasong nabanggit:

NAKALILINLANG NA MGA ARGUMENTO

1. PASPASANG KALAHATAN O NAGMAMADALING KONGKLUSYON (SA INGLES, HASTY GENERALIZATION):

SALIGAN o PREMISE: Ang pagbibigay ng SALN ay tungkulin ng lahat ng mga nagtatrabaho sa gubyerno.

PANGALAWANG SALIGAN: Binigay ni CJ ang kanyang SALN.

KONGKLUSYON: Ginagampanan ng CJ ang kanyang tungkulin.  Kung kaya’t hindi na dapat pang pagdebatehan ang kaso, at sa partikular na ito, ang Artikulo 2 ng kaso.  

Ito ang gustong ipalabas ng depensa, na sa pagkakabigay ng SALN, tapos na ang argumentasyon sa Article 2, malinis na ang reputasyon ng CJ.  .

  

TANONG: Dapat bang matapos ang kaso sa pagbibigay ng SALN?

Ganun ba kakitid mag-isip ang taumbayan para tanggapin ang SALN at bahala ka na sa buhay mo?

Ang tawag sa uri ng argumento na dapat magtapos ang usapan sa paghahain ng SALN ay hasty generalization, o paspasang pangkalahatan. Hindi pa tapos ang usapan, tinatapos na batay sa iisang papel.

Ganun ba tayo kakitid dapat mag-isip? Tatapusin ang kaso batay sa pagbibigay ng SALN? Nakakainsulto naman, di ba?

Marami pa tayong dapat itanong:

a. Ano ang laman ng SALN?

b. Patas ba ang kita ng CJ sa halaga ng kanyang mga ari-arian habang naka-upo sa puwesto?

c. Nilalaman ba ng SALN ang mga detalye na magpapatunay na tama at tugma ang laman ng kanyang SALN at ang dami ng kanyang ari-arian?

2. APILA SA KAPANGYARIHAN O APPEAL TO AUTHORITY o

Ang pagkakatalaga ng isang dating Associate Justice bilang lead counsel ng depensa ay nagpapakitang sila ay may kapangyarihan o “authority” sa kanilang hanay at lahat ng sinasabi nito ay batay sa batas. Kung kaya’t dapat paniwalaan ang lahat ng kanyang sinasabi.

Tama ba ito?

Ang tawag sa uri ng argumentong ito ay  apila sa kapangyarihan o appeal to authority.  

SALIGAN O PREMISE: The associate justice is good in justice cases.

CONCLUSION O KONGKLUSYON: Therefore, the associate justice is morally upright in this case.

Ang argumento na ito ay nagbibigay ng dalawang pag-iisip: una, ang associate justice ay magaling sa kanyang larangang hustisya; at pangalawa, ang associate justice ay may kapangyarihang moral sa kasong ito.

Mali ang kongklusyon sapagka’t tumatalon kaagad ang kongklusyon sa moralidad ng associate justice na hindi naman nabibigyan ng tamang batayan ng pariralang: “magaling ang associate justice sa kanyang larangang justicia.”

Ang isang tao ay maaaring mataas ang pinag-aralan sa batas nguni’t maaaring idepensa niya ang isang criminal upang ilayo ito sa parusang kamatayan. Kung kaya’t gagamitin niya ang lahat ng argumento para manalo sa kaso. Ang kanyang napag-aralan ay walang kinalaman sa kaso liban sa pag-aaplay nito para mailayo sa kamatayan ang kanyang dinidepensa.

Kahit na nakikita ng taumbayan na may kasalanan ang criminal, ididipensa pa rin ng mambabatas at magmumukha pa siyang tagapagtanggol ng krimen.

Ngayon sa kaso ng impeachment napakalaking bagay ang pagkakakuha ng isang dating associate justice bilang lead counsel. Sa kanyang “presence” lumalabas na may bahid na ng kawalan ng katotohanan ang mga bintang sa CJ. Bakit nga naman pagdududahan ang isang tao na may titulong “associate justice?”

Kung ako ang nasa prosecution panel, tatanungin ko, ano ang karapatan ng retired associate justice na tumanggap ng pension sa gubyerno kung siya ay papasok sa kahit na anong kaso na maaaring magpapariwara sa titulong associate justice?

Palagay ko dapat lahat ng associate justices ay magreklamo DIN sa pagpasok ng lead counsel ng depensa sa kasong ito. Retired na siya at hindi na dapat mabahiran pa, kung mababahiran man, ng kung anong anomalya ang kanyang pangalan at ang pangalan ng institusyon na pinanggalingan niya. 

3. ARGUMENTONG MASALITA O ARGUMENTUM VERBOSUM – At dahil sa magaling sa batas ang Associate Justice, nakikita at naririnig natin na marami siyang ginagamit na mga salitang legal na hindi naman natin mawawaan lahat. Dinadaan sa argumentum verbosum, o paramihan ng mga salitang legal sa pangangatwiran.

Nakapanlilinlang ito.

4. ARGUMENTONG HINDI TUMUTUGMA o Argumentong non-sequitur (maling simulang pagi-isip, maling katapusan)

Sa kasong ito, madalas sabihin,

a. PREMISE: “Ay ang prosecution puro mga bagito.”

b. CONCLUSION: Dahil dito sila ay mahina sa argumento.

(Kongklusyon na binabadya: baka hindi sila manalo kasi mas magagaling at may karanasan na ang mga nasa depensang panel.)

Subali’t kahit na bagito sa paglilitis ang mga nasa prosecution panel, ibig sabihin ba nito ay walang kabuluhan ang mga ebidensiya at walang wasto o matuwid na masasabi ang kanilang mga saksi?

Maaaring sa mga pamamaraan ay may kakulangan sila subali’t ang tibay ng kanilang kaso laban sa CJ ay nakasalalay sa kanilang mga ebidensiya at mga saksi.

Ngayon, paanong palulutangin ang mga ito? Yan ang tanong, at itinatanong ng prosecution na sana ay maging liberal sa pagtanggap ng mga ebidensiya at mga saksi na ihahanay nila.

ANG PAGTANGGAP NAMAN DAPAT AY BATAY SA KATOTOHANAN NG MGA SINASABI NG MGA ITO.

Mga Kababayan ko, huwag tayong matakot sa mga diskusyon na ito tungkol sa kaso. SurIin natin kung ano nga ba ang tinatawag na “legal mind.” Paano mag-isip ang isang taga hustisya? Tama ba ang mga saligan (premises) ng kanyang kongklusyon o pagtatapos ng argumento?

Maraming relasyon ang nasisira dahilan sa hindi magkawawaan sa pag-uusap o pagsusulatan. Hindi magka-vibes. Walang konek. May mga kaso rin na nabibigyan ng anti-human rights na pagpapapasya dahilan sa maling pagtingin sa mga argumento sa kaso. 

Pero siguro, ang hinihingi ng Prosecution na liberal method, ay yun bang lumayo sa rigid rules of court sa pagdinig ng kasong ito. Kasi sabi na nga nila, sui generis itong kasong ito, o isang klaseng unico, “a class by itself.” Kung kaya’t maaaring magkaroon ito ng mga rules na maaaring naaakma sa kasong nasabi.

At sa aking palagay, ang kasong ito ay magiging precedent sa lahat ng iba pang kasong darating na pareho ang subject – impeachment.  Kung magiging maayos ang mga kritikal na analisis, at pagpapaliwanag ng mga procedures nito. Mabuti na rin at may mga mambabatas na nakaranas ng unang impeachment at nakapagbibigay ng mga nakalap niyang leksyon doon sa kasong ito ngayon. 

Mahalaga ang papel ng media sa bahaging ito ng kaso. Sa pag-interpret nila na kaso, dapat walang pagmamaliit, pagsasabong ng magkatunggaling partido, o pagtutuya, kundi dapat itrato natin itong isang seryosong bagay na dapat harapin ng buong giting, at may paggalang sa lahat, may kasalanan man o wala.

THEATRICS AND AGEING PAPERS

When I was in college, we used to prepare for theatrical productions of classic plays that require us to age sets, costumes, and faces. Our play director wanted us to show the passage of time in the way we constructed sets and the sewed the costumes. Ageing the sets meant, pasting tissue paper on canvases and allowing wrinkles in them to show, then painting them. Through proper lighting from the sides, the wrinkles would show appearing as if the wall had cracks, a sign of ageing. Our costumes meanwhile should not look ironed but crumpled due to use depending on the scene of course.

Then when ageing characters through make-up, we were told to draw lines to where wrinkles would first show like the sides of the mouth, the eyes, and the forehead. “Daya” we called it then. “Paanong dadayain ang audience para maniwala silang ang tahanan ng mga gumaganap ay luma na, ang mga damit nila ay matagal na nilang ginagamit, at ang mga tauhan ay tunay na matanda na?” We enjoyed that very much – the make-believe stories we wove on stage. However, when we enter the legal world, we know that “daya” is not possible at all.

We have to be truthful all the time. We cannot manufacture papers and say these are valid, authentic and legal. We have to show the markings – the receipt of the office concerned, the filled up spaces, etcetera. Actually, I was intrigued by the goings-on in the impeachment case yesterday, when the papers re Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) of the Chief Justice became the center of attention.

The SALN is supposed to show once and for all if the declarations of the CJ match the number of properties he had acquired. Senator Jinggoy Estrada pointed out some discrepancies in the papers submitted to the Supreme Court in terms of receipt. Some bore machine-made dates while others were handwritten, not in sequential order. We would expect the earlier dates to bear handwritten dates and machine-made later. But no, the former showed in between of the latter. Why so?

I would go further to question – how old are the papers? If these are original, can the experts tell us how old were the inks used? In this day and age of technologies, we should be able to come up with techniques already to show proof of the age of papers, the age of writings in order to authenticate them.

This is what archaeologists do to establish the date of fossils and relics they find. There is no reason not to use the same now if we are to establish the assertion that there has public malversation of funds. I think we were not so active during the first impeachment that happened in 2000 because we were so dazed by the speed of the proceedings and the tilting of Catholic forces with the Edsa crowd.

By the way, I reiterate: that was no People Power at all.

THEATRICS AND AGEING PAPERS

THEATRICS AND AGEING PAPERS By Wilhelmina S. Orozco

When I was in college, we used to prepare for theatrical productions of classic plays that require us to age sets, costumes, and faces. Our play director wanted us to show the passage of time in the way we constructed sets and the sewed the costumes. Ageing the sets meant, pasting tissue paper on canvases and allowing wrinkles in them to show, then painting them. Through proper lighting from the sides, the wrinkles would show appearing as if the wall had cracks, a sign of ageing. Our costumes meanwhile should not look ironed but crumpled due to use depending on the scene of course. Then when ageing characters through make-up, we were told to draw lines to where wrinkles would first show like the sides of the mouth, the eyes, and the forehead. “Daya” we called it then. “Paanong dadayain ang audience para maniwala silang ang tahanan ng mga gumaganap ay luma na, ang mga damit nila ay matagal na nilang ginagamit, at ang mga tauhan ay tunay na matanda na?” We enjoyed that very much – the make-believe stories we wove on stage. However, when we enter the legal world, we know that “daya” is not possible at all. We have to be truthful all the time. We cannot manufacture papers and say these are valid, authentic and legal. We have to show the markings – the receipt of the office concerned, the filled up spaces, etcetera. Actually, I was intrigued by the goings-on in the impeachment case yesterday, when the papers re Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) of the Chief Justice became the center of attention. The SALN is supposed to show once and for all if the declarations of the CJ match the number of properties he had acquired. Senator Jinggoy Estrada pointed out some discrepancies in the papers submitted to the Supreme Court in terms of receipt. Some bore machine-made dates while others were handwritten, not in sequential order. We would expect the earlier dates to bear handwritten dates and machine-made later. But no, the former showed in between of the latter. Why so? I would go further to question – how old are the papers? If these are original, can the experts tell us how old were the inks used? In this day and age of technologies, we should be able to come up with techniques already to show proof of the age of papers, the age of writings in order to authenticate them. This is what archaeologists do to establish the date of fossils and relics they find. There is no reason not to use the same now if we are to establish the assertion that there has public malversation of funds. I think we were not so active during the first impeachment that happened in 2000 because we were so dazed by the speed of the proceedings and the tilting of Catholic forces with the Edsa crowd. By the way, I reiterate: that was no People Power at all.