Selective justice and abuse of power
IFIND it ironic that some personalities identified with the previous administration are now protesting loudly about selective justice, abuse of power, and so-called attacks on independent institutions. Ironic because these are the very same personalities who planted and nurtured the seeds of these direct attacks on our institutions, and showed no qualms about employing the full force of government to harass and demolish perceived political opponents. It was part of a grand plot to perpetuate one-party rule, a grand plot that failed miserably but destroyed reputations and inflicted harm on our institutions, hopefully not to the point of irreversibility.
It began with the hasty impeachment of a sitting chief justice through sheer force of numbers sweetened by government money known as Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP). The impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona was a frontal confrontation with the Supreme Court that was a portent of the previous administration’s kill-and-burn approach to political hegemony. The manner and method by which the previous administration systematically eroded the independence of the judiciary has greatly affected the dispensation of justice. This attack on the judiciary is like a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of members of the court, sending a chilling effect that affected the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
Checks and balances are the foundations of democracy. The Constitution is quite explicit when it reposed on the courts not only the power but the duty “to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch of instrumentality of government.” The intention of the framers of the Constitution was to prevent a situation where the judiciary bends to the will of one branch, or of one man as was the case during martial law. Political observers have claimed, with sufficient basis, that what the previous administration wanted was a court pliant and submissive to its wishes.
As a lawyer and a Filipino, I believe that our democracy obligates the three co-equal branches — Executive, Judiciary, and Legislature — to respect each one’s independence and recognize each one’s powers, duties, and limitations set by the Constitution. This ensures a healthy, vibrant, and working democracy that benefits the people.
Yet during the previous administration, efforts were made to bend the knees of the judiciary and legislature to the executive. This was accomplished in Congress — particularly the Senate — through sheer tyranny of numbers.
The Senate became a forum for political demolition. I need not belabor the lies raised against me and my family during the year-long public hearings conducted by a sub-committee. But I have always maintained that this sub-committee did not have the competence or the authority to determine criminal liability. The Constitution authorizes Congress, or any of its committees, to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation – not to determine criminal liability because it does not have the competence to do so, nor the rules and procedures that will protect the rights of the accused and their witnesses.
The investigations were made in aid of demolition, not legislation. My rights, and the rights of those who testified to my innocence, were violated.
The actions of the previous Senate brings to mind a similar witch hunt in the 1950s perpetrated by United States Senator Joseph McCarthy against what he called communists in the US Army and the US government. Every rumor was broadcast or published, every accusation was accepted as truth, every suspect was subjected to scare and smear tactics.
Senator McCarthy’s witch hunt lasted four years and ruined many careers as well as lives – until legendary broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow denounced his abusive and illegal conduct of the investigations. McCarthy was eventually censured by the US Senate, and after that, he lost his Senate seat.
As harmful as McCarthyism was to so many innocent people, it was even more harmful to the Senate as a democratic institution. Similarly, as harmful as the subcommittee’s investigations have been to me and my family, its abuse of the Senate’s powers has damaged the Philippine Senate even more as a democratic institution.
And then we have the Ombudsman. When the public expressed righteous indignation over the abuses of the PDAF by members of Congress from all political parties, the Ombudsman filed plunder cases against three sitting senators identified with the opposition. The filing of the cases tested the fairness and impartiality of the Ombudsman, a test she miserably failed. Eventually, two of the three senators were allowed to post bail by the courts.
The Ombudsman has gained notoriety for giving “express-lane treatment” — or selective justice — to complaints against perceived enemies of the previous administration. On the other hand, complaints involving leading personalities and allies of the previous administration gathered dust.
And when the Ombudsman did file cases against administration personalities over the DAP, legal experts were one in saying that the case was watered down to ensure dismissal by the courts.
The Ombudsman exemplified selective prosecution which even experts found “obvious and manifest.” This is one of the basis for the clamor for her impeachment.
I believe in strengthening our institutions and protecting human rights. It’s about time we end the vicious political warfare that ensues with every change in administration. Now, more than ever, there must be a greater effort to rebuild the country based on genuine respect for the rule of law, the Constitution and human rights. We must sincerely rededicate ourselves to the ideals of democracy if we are to grow as a nation. We should not be intimated or silenced by the fear of bashing or reprisal.