Unfair and misleading

Like all other lawyers in this country, I have to become a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) when it was created by the Rules of Court as the official organization of all companeros and companeras. And since I was “conscripted” way back on October 1, 1974, I was just one of the card carrying members faithfully paying my dues and fulfilling my duties pursuant to the oath I took upon hurdling the Bar. I must admit that I had never been actively involved in its administration and direction except to vote in the election of our Chapter Officers in Quezon City and sometimes attend National Conventions especially if they are held in some of the country’s top tourist spots. Occasionally I also give talks on some legal topics when invited and render some free legal aid services in the community.

It is really mind boggling to be at the helm of an organization with more than 45,000 members having as many different opinions on just about any legal issue. Fortunately however, since the time of Justice Jose B.L. Reyes, a highly respected jurist and civil law author and professor who was the President when I had to join the IBP, its mantle of leadership has passed on to various legal luminaries who all have given the organization an unsullied reputation as the champion of the rule of law. Being a member of the IBP is indeed a source of great pride especially every-time it fearlessly speaks out on current issues jeopardizing the search for truth and justice. And this can also be said of the present IBP leadership who has not hesitated to speak out against the assault on the rule of law.

The latest policy statement of the National President, Feliciano M. Bautista and the eight members of the Board of Governors appearing in a paid ad entitled “Rule of Law under Siege” would have been another classic example of the IBP’s uncompromising stand upholding the rule of law as it assailed the Lower House of Congress for the killing of the impeachment complaint and its renewed move to cha-cha. But even as they emphatically defended the rule of law, and expressed their feelings of sadness and betrayal by our “so called leaders” for “raping” these very ideals, the IBP officers have unfortunately violated what they are staunchly espousing when they said that “the dismissal of the graft cases against former DOJ Secretary Nani Perez (was) on a ‘technicality’ despite sufficient evidence of culpability”.

To members of both the Bench and the Bar, the dismissal by the Sandiganbayan is not actually on a technicality. The case was dismissed because: first, it violates the substantive, constitutional right of a person to due process by the inordinate delay in terminating the preliminary investigation and filing the information as it took the Office of the Ombudsman nearly six years to do so (People vs. Anonas, 513 SCRA 553,557). Indeed once a person is prosecuted criminally, he is entitled as a matter of right to a speedy trial irrespective of the nature of the offense and the manner in which it is authorized to be commenced (Mercado vs. Santos, et. al 66 Phil. 215). In the words of Justice Laurel in Bermudez vs. Castillo (64 Phil. 483, 493), this is a “sacred privilege” which should not be treated as if it were a mere excrescence in the Constitution; and second, when Ombudsman filed the information after undue delay, it split a single act allegedly committed on a single occasion against a single person into four different crimes, thereby ignoring the rule on composite crimes (People vs. Malinao 423 SCRA 34).

The IBP officers did not likewise follow the rule of law when they unqualifiedly concluded that there is “sufficient evidence of culpability” against Secretary Perez despite the fact that none of them had been in the many hearings held by the Sandiganbayan on the said cases and that the prosecution had not even presented any evidence. Indeed such conclusion violates the cardinal principle of due process enshrined in our Constitution which Daniel Webster describes as a law that “hears before it condemns”. Besides the mere fact alone that it took the Ombudsman almost six years to gather evidence indicates that it does not have sufficient evidence to convict. Atty. Marcial O.T. Balgos, one of the lawyers of Secretary Perez attested that he “has gone over the evidence supposedly in the hands of the Special Prosecutors and can safely say that there is gross insufficiency thereof against my client”.

Secretary Perez is also a member of the IBP. I am sure he fully supports the organization as all lawyers should. It is thus unfair to him and undoubtedly to all other lawyers if his own organization would be making such statement against him that is clearly not in accordance with the rule of law. Perhaps the IBP Officers should re-deliberate on this matter especially because not all officers have obviously signed it particularly the IBP Executive Vice President Atty. Rogelio Vinluan. A rectification from the IBP Officers is therefore necessary. This is just fair to all concerned, not only Secretary Perez but more importantly to the Sandiganbayan which ordered the dismissal of the case.

(Note: Books containing compilation of my articles in Labor and Criminal Laws (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445 or you may buy them at 403 Sunrise Condominium, Ortigas Ave. Greenhils S.J.).