Serving the ends of justice

There were so many bleeding hearts, or should I say people shedding crocodile tears for heinous crime victim, the late Maureen Hultman after President Arroyo granted executive clemency to her convicted killer, Claudio Teehankee Jr. Bitter critics of the President decried the executive clemency she granted to Teehankee as another case of the rich and influential getting these special favors from the Arroyo administration.

While I can empathize with Anders and Vivian Hultman for their outrage with the release from jail of their daughter’s murderer, I could not fathom why some people are so heartless in taking advantage of this very unfortunate case to serve their own political ends. These politicians have the gall to pontificate about the ends of justice supposedly being subverted by the grant of executive clemency on Teehankee.

Other than their shrill denunciations of this act of mercy to a convicted killer who had paid his dues to society, Arroyo-bashers could not justify their vehement objections for the release of Teehankee except riding on such an emotional issue for the Hultmans. But since this is a high-profile case, these politicos want to squeeze their own pound of flesh through media mileage.

No amount of obfuscation can distort the fact that justice had already been served. This was from the time Teehankee was quickly arrested after he committed these crimes in 1991, later tried and convicted by our courts for the double murder case of Hultman and Ronald Chapman and frustrated murder case of Jussi Leino. For these crimes, he served jail time for about 17 years or so.

In my younger years as a reporter, I covered once the justice beat for quite a period of time when the Supreme Court was headed by the late chief justice Claudio Teehankee, the father of Claudio. No amount of our reporters’ enterprise could convince the late SC chief justice to grant media interviews even if we were able to catch him in events that took him out of his office. Because that’s the only time we could interview the SC chief justice then when he was outside his chambers. The elder Teehankee zealously guarded the judiciary’s integrity and independence. He would not allow himself to be buttonholed into making any comments on issues and especially cases that might be elevated to the High Court. Those were the Camelot period of the judiciary!

So I was tossed back to those days of my justice beat coverage when I heard former Justice Undersecretary Manuel “Dondi” Teehankee referred to their late father during a phone patch interview on radio and TV following the controversy stirred by the release last week of Claudio from the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa City. Dondi, who is the Philippine representative to the Geneva-based World Trade Organization (WTO), is the family’s official spokesman in behalf of their 89-year old mother.

Dondi’s reference to the late SC chief justice was to take strong exceptions of their family’s alleged use of their wealth and influence that secured the release of his older brother Claudio. Dondi described their late father as someone who strongly stood for “rule of law” and that his family would not do anything less than what could dishonor his memory.

Ironically, their late father’s strong adherence to the “rule of law” is being twisted by shameful kind of politics. Rather, a very unkind politics that do not even spare people’s emotions like losing a beloved daughter to unexplained fit of rage that snuffed her life and the future she would have enjoyed.

Let’s check out the facts of the case if indeed there was miscarriage of justice. The Hultman family agreed with the Teehankee family in the court-approved settlement they both signed on Nov.19,1999. One of the provisions of which stated that “the Hultmans through their duly authorized representative herein, will not object nor interpose any objection to the application for such parole or the commutation or shortening of the sentence of Claudio Teehankee Jr., or to such other similar proceedings or reliefs, provided, that the same shall be in accordance with law.” Let’s not even talk about the   P6.964 million in cash given to the Hultmans under this court-approved “settlement” because no amount of money could bring back the life of the victim here.  

To be objective about this, let the facts speak for the case. Claudio, through his lawyers, applied with the Board of Pardons and Parole for the grant of executive clemency as required under our country’s laws. Legal procedures require publication of the names of applicants to enable the family of their victims or any other interested parties to oppose and block the grant of presidential pardon. On Feb. 6, 2004, notices to the offended parties and prosecutor and presiding judge were issued by the BPP and was published in The Philippine STAR. The name of Claudio Jr. and 15 other inmates whose applications were being considered for clemency were in that published list.

President Arroyo issued on Sept.30, or more than four years later, the order of commutation for Claudio’s jail sentence. In effect, the presidential clemency shortened the maximum sentence of 40 years to 21 years and three months. Based on actual time served of 17 years, two months and nine days, and the legal time served with Good Conduct Allowance credits, Claudio Jr. qualified for this grant of executive clemency.

A further check of the records of those granted executive clemency by the President would show that 1,430 inmates regained their freedom since January 2005. This number is increasing, thanks to the Public Attorney’s Office, headed by Persida Rueda-Acosta, who has been actively working for the release of very old and very sick inmates in local and national jails. In fact, of the total number of inmates granted pardon, or their jail sentence commuted, 554 were freed due to old age. She has been working hard for the release of the 12 remaining convicts in the Aquino-Galman double murder case jailed at the NBP for 25 years already.    

Claudio Jr. is now 67 years old. Eventually, he would regain his freedom if he waits for another three years when he becomes qualified for commutation of sentence due to old age, or too sick and dying, which ever comes first. But would that serve the ends of justice?