Ed i tor ia l Mendacious lawyers

TWho leaked the 45 properties information to media?

HE unfair sentiment that lawyers are not the most virtuous of men goes back to the earliest civilizations. The Bible contains some of the most damning words about lawyers. Our Lord Jesus Christ had just rebuked the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, when in Luke 11:45, a lawyer complains, “Teacher, in speaking this way you insult us too.” And Jesus replies (11:46-47) “Woe to you lawyers also! You lay impossible burdens on men but will not lift a finger to lighten them. Woe to you! You build the tombs of the prophets, but it was your fathers who murdered them.”

Another well-known quotation about lawyers was made by Will Rogers: “Make crime pay. Become a lawyer.”

And, of course, a Shakespearian character says: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

The novelist Mario Puzo (The Godfather) has a character saying: “A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a thousand men with guns.”

And The Devil’s Dictionary (Ambrose Bierce) defines a lawyer as “one skilled in circumvention of the law.”

The fact, however, is that some lawyers really do take the example of St. Thomas More, the Catholic martyr and saint, seriously. He was willing to die rather than go against his conscience and his faith although he had been King Henry VIII’S most trusted lawyer and minister.

Unfortunately, no one of this kind of lawyer has yet been seen in the prosecution and defense sides of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona. To the contrary, especially, the prosecution, the lawyers’ capacity to prevaricate with a straight face has been demonstrated in the impeachment trial. This most glaringly happened on Thursday, when the question was asked: Who leaked to the media what was proved to be the lie that the Chief Justice and his wife and children owned 45 pieces of property.

Head of the House Prosecution Panel, Rep. Neil Tupas Jr. was asked by Senator-judge Jinggoy Estrada pointedly. Congressman Tupas, after attempting to evade giving a yes or no answer by offering the explanation that the—incorrect— list of 45 real estate assets came from the government’s Land Registration Authority, finally said, “We [the prosecution} did not leak the list to the media.” Then who did? Mr. Tupas’ statement was inconsistent with the truth. For the Inquirer headline that told the world that Chief Justice Corona had so many pieces of high-priced property came from information supplied by the prosecution.

Before the trial began, video footage shows, Rep. Romero Quimbo, spokesman of the prosecution panel, with other congressmen present, holding court at a press conference. He was speaking to reporters about the real estate assets allegedly owned by the Chief Justice and his family.

It was an extensive press conference. Rep. Quimbo was guided by documents from which he was detailing the CJ’S alleged property holdings.

Asked later about it, Rep. Quimbo could no longer recall that such a press briefing happened because it was a long time—about two weeks—ago.

Talking to the public—on TV, radio and through newspapers— about the alleged existence of evidence against Mr. Corona before the alleged evidence has been offered at the trial is unfair to the senator-judges and the entire Senate as an institution.

And it is also a below-the-belt-blow to the accused, who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

This is a serious matter. Presiding-judge Juan Ponce Enrile, Senator Chiz Escudero, Senator Jinggoy Estrada, Senator Pia Cayetano and others want the practice to stop.

Unjust to senator-judges and the accused

It is unfair and unjust for prosecution spokesmen and publicists to make the people think that this piece of evidence, this letter from the government land registry authorities, that photo of the opulent condominium and a ton of other evidence will “surely” cook Mr. Corona’s goose. But as it turns out the so-called evidence is incorrect. Pieces of property that have been sold and are now owned by other people remain listed as assets owned by the CJ.

Later, when those pieces of evidence are shown to be incorrect and therefore inadmissible as proofs against the Chief Justice, who will the public believe? What will the people’s perception be

Many of the people will think that the senator-judges have been corrupted by Mr. Corona into rejecting those pieces of irrelevant and incorrect evidence.

After telling the people that Mr. Corona had 45 pieces of real estate property, the prosecution can after all only show that there are only really 24 assets worth discussing.

After having been subjected to the publicity campaign against Mr. Corona, will the public be easily persuaded that the prosecution had made a mistake? Not likely. Not unless the spokesmen held a similar long and detailed briefing this time about the prosecution’s error in listing 45 pieces of property and what these errors are.

Without a publicity campaign to persuade the people of the incorrectness of the earlier portrayals of Mr. Corona’s wealth and vast properties, the public will hold the belief that he has come to own wealth and assets beyond his income. And if the senator judges do not punish him for that, then the public will think the senator-judges must be corrupt.

That’s the problem when lawyers let mendacity rule—even in just a single press conference.