If there is any reason to be alarmed about kidnapping trends, it is the likelihood that some politicians with experience along that line may resort again to kidnapping for ransom to raise campaign funds for the 2004 election.
Considering the soaring cost of elections, money contributed by the illicit drugs trade may not be enough for some persons aiming for a national office. Hence the likelihood of kidnapping for ransom becoming an additional source of campaign funds.
Against the same period the other year (2001), the decline in the number of kidnap for ransom cases was even lower by 22 percent.
Of the 29 cases reported this year, 23 were in Luzon, five in Mindanao, and one was in the Visayas. Eleven cases were solved by the police while 25 suspects were arrested and prosecuted. Seven of 42 kidnap victims were rescued, 28 released, twoescaped, and one was killed.
Teresita Ang-See of the Citizens’ Action Against Crime said yesterday that negotiations and rescue attempts could go awry, sometimes resulting in the killing of some kidnap victims, when there is premature disclosure of sensitive details.
The senator insults the public with his line that the justices – Renato Corona, Ma. Alicia Austria Martinez, Conchita Morales, Adolfo Azcuna, and Romeo Callejo Sr. – cannot and will not be fair to him solely on the basis of who appointed them.
Lacson has to submit empirical basis for his unusual theory that a magistrate cannot be just and upright because he was appointed by President Arroyo, otherwise his motion will have to be dismissed outright.
If we pursue the Lacson theory to its absurd ramifications, we have to conclude that other justices cannot be fair either (they could be pro-Lacson) because they were appointed by former President Erap Estrada.
We can go on tracing the presidents who named the rest of the justices, until we depopulate the high court with a rash of inhibitions and disable it.
There have been such situations. In one big case, sad to say, the justice did not have the delicadeza to inhibit himself. On the contrary, he made a strained explanation that he was not the lawyer of the company itself but of one of the major partners in the business.
The same justice was the presidential legal counsel when the papers of the company were processed and approved by the Office of the President. But he toughed it out and insisted on casting a vote on the case.
We can’t blame some people for thinking that the justice must have been paid handsomely to remain that loyal to the company he once helped – at the expense of the Supreme Court’s integrity.
A lawyer appointed to the high court casts aside, suddenly and forever, all past professional relations. Imagine the stinking anomaly of a judge, more so a justice, continuing to serve the interests of actual and potential litigants.
This is not a gray moral area. It is a black-and-white, a good-or-evil ethical question.
Davide is not just "one of the boys." He is the chief justice. Whether or not it says so in his job description, he must exercise firm control and supervision over the conduct of all justices and personnel of the high court.
It is not enough that Chief Justice Davide is clean. The entire Davide Court must be, too. And the entire court must not only be clean, but smell, feel and look it.
We’re sure Davide has tried talking to some of the justices about this problem. He must persist. He must assert his moral ascendancy over the entire bench.
If the court does not review and correct the inconsistencies, the suspicion will linger that there were times when decisions depended not on the law and the facts but on who followed up the cases.
Some disputes are such that they can be decided either way, with the rulings neatly justified within the letter of the law. Pero naman, the court should at least be consistent, even when it is incorrect or influenced by extralegal considerations.
Some justices seem to think that the inconsistencies would not be noticed, or that the losing party would have no recourse to correct the injustice anyway. It’s not so, your honor.
The senator from Mindanao cited instances when the US stepped into major conflicts and brokered peace settlements that have been holding to this day. He mentioned the conflicts between India and Pakistan, and Egypt and Israel, among other disputes.
The moment we abandon all attempts to talk peace and decide to pick up the gun, he said, the prospects for peace grow dimmer.
"Instead of bringing American troops into trouble areas in Mindanao," Pimentel said, "let’s bring in their diplomats and give peace a chance."