Law and justice on trial

In a democracy with a presidential form of government — which we have in the Philippines — there are supposed to be three co-equal branches of government; namely the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary. For better or for worse, the three branches are supposed to serve as checks and balances to each other.

The Legislative branch — the Senate and House of Representatives — exercises oversight over the executive branch and all its agencies. The Congress can demand executive officials to appear in front of its committee members to answer questions broadcasted live by radio and television. The Executive has the right to investigate and file charges against lawmakers it believes are guilty of corruption. But there are those who seem to believe that only fellow judges have the right to investigate and even pass judgment on other judges.

It seems to me, however, that the Judiciary actually believes that the judicial branch is “First Among Equals.” When the legislative passes laws or the executive issues Executive or Administrative Orders, it is accepted that every citizen has the right to publicly criticize these laws or orders. Every media personality would consider it as a violation of their freedom of speech if they were told that once a law or an executive order is passed, public criticism will be forbidden.

There are even groups who feel that if they oppose a decision made by Congress or the President, they have every right to hold demonstrations to express their opposition. In fact, media personalities believe they have a right to criticize not only congressional law and presidential orders but to publicly condemn the persons responsible for these laws or orders.

This right to publicly criticize is based on two premises. First, there is the belief that one of the basic freedoms in a democracy is freedom of speech and expression. As someone once said: I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it.

The second premise is that all members of government in all three branches, executive, legislative, judiciary, are ordinary mortals and — unlike the Pope — are not infallible. They can make mistakes and even make wrong decisions. And every citizen has the right to question any decision that will have an effect on the people’s lives.

Hopefully, it is clear that I am referring to public criticism. I am not advocating any form of disobedience as militant groups advocate civil disobedience or even armed insurrection. That, I will agree, is treason in a democracy. Of course, in a dictatorship such as what we had during the Marcos years, the option of civil disobedience was a legitimate alternative. But, I adhere to the belief that in a democracy, change must come via the ballot box.

On the assumption then that freedom of speech and expression is a basic right in a democracy, coupled with the belief that decision makers in all three branches are not infallible, I cannot understand why criticizing court decisions are exempt from criticism.

I do not agree with the recent Court of Appeals decision acquitting Dennis Ang Uy, CEO Phoenix Petroleum, of allegedly being responsible for P5 to P6 billion in oil smuggling on the basis that he was not accorded “due process.”

During the height of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) controversy, I wrote several columns that seemed to have angered certain sectors who wrote me several messages saying I should not disagree with the Supreme Court.

Firstly, I noticed that there were several decisions written by different Justices of the Supreme Court. I decided to write that one decision written by one of the Supreme Court Associate Justices made more sense than the others. Second, I wrote that the legal opinions of Rene Saguisag and Adolf Azcuna made more sense than other legal opinions. I will not accept the idea that criticizing or quoting critics of even a Supreme Court decision, composed of ordinary mortals, is a betrayal of democratic ideals.

As a Catholic, I believe in the Church’s teaching on papal infallibility. This belief is anchored on the teachings of Jesus Christ such as when He said to the apostles: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt.18:18). Also, infallibility applies only to solemn official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals.

I do not see court decisions, even Supreme Court decisions, as being “bound in heaven.” And I am fairly certain that the number of different decisions written by different Justices on the DAP controversy indicate that they themselves are probably aware that a single interpretation is always perfect.

On June 29, 1998, The Sandiganbayan convicted Imelda Romualdez Marcos of a charge that she had entered into an agreement disadvantageous to the government. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the decision and cited Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena for his alleged bias against Imelda Romualdez Marcos.

On July 2013, Romulo Neri, former Cabinet member of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, was found guilty of “simple misconduct” by the Court of Appeals for recommending the approval of the anomalous $329M national broadband deal between the Philippine government and the ZTE Corporation of China.

On August 2014, the Court of Appeals dismissed all smuggling charges against Phoenix Petroleum, declaring that Dennis Ang Uy had been deprived of due process.

At the beginning of the term of P-Noy,  the Supreme Court — then headed by impeached Chief Justice Rene Corona — declared as unconstitutional the Truth Commission to be headed by the respected former Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide.

These are just four court decisions I have openly said that I disagree with. I stress that in a democratic form of government, we must obey  the decision of legally constituted authorities. But a famous jurist, often quoted by many of my friends in the judiciary and the academe, Oliver Wendell Holmes, once said : “This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.”

What happens when there is a conflict between law and justice?

Write Things promotes Filipino authors

It is a deliberate attempt of the Where the Write Things Are writing center (for the sake of transparency, I have to proudly confess that this is the family venture of my wife, Neni Sta. Romana Cruz whose passions are reading and writing) to expose students to Philippine literature and to see authors as role models to look up to by having only published authors as teacher-facilitators at its regular Saturday Writers’ Hangout Sessions. Happy news for aspiring young writers — an opportunity to interact and write with more published authors for the month of August. Scheduled teachers are novelist Bebang Siy (August 16), award-winning children’s literature author May Tobias (August 23), and well known professor and YA novelist Carla Pacis (August 30). 

Pacis launches the Write Away! Weekend Specials series on the last Saturday of every month with her intensive course, “Surviving (and enjoying) writing for school: Book Reports, Essays, Reviews,” 1-4 p.m. at the Canadian American School, 6F, The City Club Alphaland, Makati. 

Forthcoming Write Away! guest authors are London-based YA novelist Candy Gourlay and Palanca Hall of Famer Dr. Luis P. Gatmaitan.  Contact 0917-6240196 or [email protected] for more info.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]