On Thursday evening last week, I found myself glued to the television as the NAIA drama played out. I was transfixed by the chaos that unfolded as photographers and cameramen jostled for good shots of ex-President and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as she got out of the ambulance. The scene reminded me of similar scenes during the Quirino Grandstand hostage-taking. Thankfully, no one died at NAIA that night.
A lot of us must have waited and wondered if she was going to get away and avoid punishment for the numerous misdeeds that she has been accused of, none of them covered by a criminal case filed in court at that time. Suddenly, a lot of people in Facebook and Twitter had something to say about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and how the incident showed that if an ex-President can have her constitutional right to travel violated, more so the ordinary man (or woman).
Maybe I’m cynical but I think that the belief that an ordinary man (or woman) can enjoy the same rights as President Arroyo is extraordinarily naïve. For example, a lot of Filipinos get stopped at the airport and are prevented from leaving on the suspicion that they are not real tourists but are looking for jobs abroad. There was no court-issued Hold Departure Order to stop them from leaving. Maybe the suspicion was well-founded but if the constitutional provision on the right to travel is interpreted literally, the only reasons they can be stopped are national security, public safety, or public health.
I’ve never heard of any of them going to the Supreme Court to ask for relief. It could be that they are deterred from filing a petition because there are so many requirements for one. Not everyone has the resources to prepare them. If a petition does get filed, I can imagine the Supreme Court dismissing it. It could cite the principle of the hierarchy of courts and effectively tell the petitioner that her case is not important enough for the Supreme Court to deal with. That is, if the petition does not get dismissed in one sentence because of a technicality.
Like a telenovela fan, I continue to follow the saga on TV and the Internet, even if it means putting up with the protestations of ex-First Gentleman Mike Arroyo about due process (which rankle) and the non-witticisms of his lawyer who loves talking about his reproductive parts. The filing of the criminal case at the Pasay RTC last Friday, the issuance of the warrant of arrest after the Supreme Court denied the Government’s motion for reconsideration, the service of the warrant of arrest, the booking of the charges — they make for excellent story-telling. With the ease by which lawyers can manipulate our criminal justice system, it will be long before we get a final decision on the accusations against her.
Some telenovelas allow audience participation in determining how the story will end. Some have alternative endings depending on how the audience votes by text. We can do the same and participate in discussions in Facebook and Twitter, and if we are so minded, by joining the rallies in support of or against President Arroyo. The similarities end there though—our actions should have no effect on the courts. If we want to believe the legal fiction that courts are impartial and the maxim that justice is blind, that is how it should be.
* * *
Email: me at lkemalilong@yahoo.com.