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.
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment