A response from lawyer Jose Roy III

I have two lengthy emails in response to our article, first from Atty. Jose “Judd” Roy III on that article we wrote entitled “Who’s Sorry Now” and a letter by Sen. Richard “Dick” Gordon in response to our column about the attempted removal of the statue of Lapu-Lapu which stands at the Agrifina Circle in the Luneta. Since the two letters are quite lengthy, I will first discuss the letter of Atty. Roy and put Dick Gordon’s letter for Tuesday.

So here’s Atty. Roy’s letter but I had to cut some parts, as it is quite long.

“Hi Bobit: Thank you for your article on p. 13 of the 10 July 2014 issue of the Philippine STAR. It certainly brought back memories of what can be a thankless job. When I stuck my neck out to accuse the President and his men of bribery during the impeachment of Corona, it was with full knowledge of the possibility that I could be punished and ridiculed for making a baseless statement. I repeat now that I was motivated then by certain matters that are always important to me, namely the independence of the judiciary and fair play in our democratic processes.

As fate would have it, I did not even lift a finger to prove the truth of my revelation. The great deceit played upon the nation when the Impeachment tribunal cited me in contempt was confirmed by members of the Senate itself, who disclosed the weird ‘kidnapping incident’ involving the former Secretary of Transportation and Communication Mar Roxas clandestinely driving Senators Estrada and Revilla to a secret meeting with President Aquino and Secretary Butch Abad to rig the impeachment votes. Of course, I knew nothing of the details of that sordid affair back then.

That charade of citing me in contempt was nothing but a ruse to make it look like the tribunal was fair and impartial — a mere ploy for the benefit of the peanut gallery and jeering mobs. You see, at that time, the DAP money had already been offered and senators were being asked to submit their project wish lists.  As you know, most Senator-Judges were individually concerned with how they would be perceived by the public rather than how they should correctly address each step in the litigation. At bottom, Bobit, all I wanted was for the Senate to investigate my claim and summon those named. I didn’t even get that.

You might also recall that I issued my apology weeks before I was cited in contempt. I had a lengthy exchange on the floor with Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, who grilled me about the press con and my justifications for my actions. I did my best to explain the side of defense counsel and deliver our apology for “soiling their reputation”. What an irony!

         We all believed the issue was over and settled. Some weeks after that, one of the prosecution lawyers brought the proceedings to a virtual halt when he covered his ears as one of the senators was speaking. He was ordered out of the courtroom after being berated and nearly challenged to a fistfight by the lady senator! When he was cited in contempt, I was quite stunned to hear that I too was being cited in contempt.

         Obviously, this was a feeble attempt to make the proceedings and judges seem fair or balanced, and to give the overwhelming number of administration supporters in the peanut gallery a bone to chew on while the prosecution panel took another black-eye for unprofessional behaviour, on top of so many others already on record.

        To be sure, however, I have received personal apologies from some senators during accidental meetings after the impeachment. I care not to quibble about what they claim was their duty at that time. And, as you can imagine, the opinions of these public officials hold little weight or water as far as I am concerned.

        The other side of it is that as a court warrior, I have learned to take many of these things in stride, not to get too personal about skirmishes, disagreements or even heated arguments in proceedings. Part of the job, as they say. But this is a rather unique case because the underlying issue is the integrity of a political institution and its capacity to honor the Constitution.

        The Senate has never sunk so low nor has its reputation been ever so black as it is today. The presence of new faces — most of who are related to the top officials — does nothing to save the reputation of the institution. At best, the newbies enjoy a rebuttable presumption of individual integrity and ability, nothing more. As for the Senate itself, however, there are still many dark clouds of doubt over it. My grandfather is turning in his grave, probably thankful that I have not pursued a career path towards a senatorial seat. 

         For the record, it was Chief Justice Narvasa who urged me to defend CJ Corona for the Court, to ‘go there and defend my office’ he said, and most of all, to ‘give ‘em hell!’ Those were his exact words. That is what I tried to do. Incidentally, after Corona’s conviction, Narvasa had this to say to me: Ako? Walang dollars! Yes, there is a lighter side to this great irony. So, Bobit, I think you may want to revise your question — Look who’s in hell now? 

* * *

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]