Life and honor

March 30, 2011 is indeed one of the rare times when Filipinos felt more united. Undoubtedly, most of us somehow experience a tinge of sadness over the execution of the three Pinoys in China. The nation really mourns the death of Elizabeth Batain, Sally Ordinario-Villanueva and Ramon Canovas-Credo and sympathizes with their family and relatives. The somber mood sweeping the country now is reminiscent of that time when another Filipina OFW, Flor Contemplacion, was executed in Singapore. This kind of reaction once more proves how much we value family, and life  an outstanding Filipino trait that we should never lose or give up.

But there are signs that our hold on this great trait of highly valuing family and life is slowly slipping away. In fact we may be adopting China’s anti-life and anti-family culture if some of the pending legislations purportedly aimed at controlling our population growth with deadly methods will push through. Then also in the case of our OFWs, after what happened to Contemplacion, those in and out of the government firmly committed that it should never happen again to them who we look up to as our modern day heroes. Yet here we are again mourning the tragic fate that befell not only on one but on three of them. It seems that we have not learned our lessons well.

Of course there is nothing much we can do if China strictly enforces their laws that apparently reflect an anti-family and anti-life culture. Maybe their harsh experience and inability to control the drug menace that can be historically traced to have originated in their country impelled their prosecutors and their judges to impassively (or even ruthlessly) apply their laws no matter how disagreeable, inhuman and repugnant they may be.

Coming to mind right away in this connection are our own prosecutors and judges. It is simply hard to resist the temptation of comparing them with their Chinese counterparts in the enforcement and application of the laws especially in the light of recent developments here regarding the impeachment of our Ombudsman.

There are two points of comparison: the kind of laws being enforced and applied and the contrasting manner of prosecuting and enforcing the laws. Unlike the Chinese laws that are clearly inhuman such that a prosecutor or judge may even be justified in refusing to prosecute and apply them, the laws involved here in the case of the Ombudsman obviously promote good governance and combat graft corruption and plunder which are definitely for the common good.

 Indeed, our Ombudsman is supposed to be the guardian and champion of the people against any illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient acts or omissions of public officials and government employees. But in the following cases, these are her actions:

In the fertilizer fund scam which happened way back in 2004-2005, she has not yet filed up to now any case against Joc Joc Bolante and the other official involved despite two Senate Committee Reports finding probable cause to charge them. Even if the scam is nationwide and therefore requires lots of time for investigating, the long delay in finding probable cause and filing the charges especially against the principal Agricultural officials involved particularly Bolante is no longer justifiable. Initially her reason was Bolante’s flight abroad. But when Bolante was extradited last 2009, she promised to resolve the case within 90 days. It is now 2011 but the case has not yet been resolved up to now.

In the Mega Pacific deal on the Automated Counting Machines (ACM), no less than the Supreme Court itself found several irregularities in the bidding process prompting it to refer the case to her as the Ombudsman for determination of criminal liability of those involved. But instead of merely determining criminal liability, the Ombudsman went further and apparently looked for proof beyond reasonable doubt, found none and dismissed the case.

In the NBN-ZTE broadband overpricing, a formal complaint has already been filed in her office based on the transcript of testimonies at the Senate hearings that were forwarded and submitted to her Office together complete with supporting documents as early as 2008. But she only acted on them more than a year later filing charges only against Abalos and Neri while clearing the other personalities implicated particularly the former First Gentleman and the former President who recommended and appointed her as Ombudsman.

Then in early 2009 a World Bank Report on the bid rigging and collusion regarding road projects came out showing that as early as three years before, she was already furnished a copy of the initial report regarding the anomaly. But she did not act on it on the flimsy ground that the report was supposedly classified and confidential.

Apparently, these acts and omissions are enough reasons for the House of Representatives to impeach her mainly because of “betrayal of public trust”. To impeach commonly means to discredit. Legally to impeach is to accuse, to charge a liability upon, to sue, to proceed against a public officer (Black’s Law Dictionary, 886). Within the meaning of our Constitution, it is the filing or the institution of a written accusation called the articles of impeachment against the President (enumerate) by the House of Representatives and the presentation thereof to the Senate.

It is correct to say that by being “impeached” does not amount to a finding of guilt yet because there is still a trial to be conducted by the Senate. So the Ombudsman has all reasons to cling to her office and wait until her guilt has been proven. But with the several incidents cited as grounds for her impeachment, she should realize by now that her performance is below the standards of probity, integrity and independence set by the Constitution and the law. At least she should take a leave. 

These recent incidents, the execution in China and the impeachment of the Ombudsman here, are somehow inter-related for they involve life and honor which are dear to every man and woman.

*      *      *

E-mail:[email protected]