My lady Carmen and I had, over a recent lunch, a great bonding time with our children and grandchildren, now college students, expressing their minds over random topics. We thoroughly enjoyed funny and intellectual banter. Andre, who was seated on the side of our 12-man-long dinner table opposite her aunt Beatriz asked her for a glass of water. The dispenser located in the kitchen was nearer to my daughter. Beatriz, without saying a word, stood up and got water for Andre.
To many, the scene was probably okay as it would appear practical. But not to an old man, like me. As soon as my daughter gave my grandson the glass of water, I said to Andre: “Times must have really changed. When I was your age, we the younger members of our family would never ask our elders to do even the most practical favor like what you requested your tita.” It was not wrong for Andre to do that, after all Beatriz was nearer to the dispenser but we were trained differently. In our time, we held the position of our elders with highest respect such that we would not want them to do for us, the younger generation, even trivial matters.
In the socio-political world, times have changed. There may, in fact, be aspects in legal perceptions where we can probably claim “times have changed”. For instance there was this American economic case called Dartmouth College of more than two centuries past. It laid down the initial parameters of due process. Lawyers are quick to invoke that due process hears before it condemns, proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after fair trial.
Let me cite the most recent incident involving Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama and I venture to say “times have changed.” Few days ago, the Office of the Ombudsman reportedly suspended the city mayor for six months. Honestly, I have not read that Ombudsman order myself while I studied the Dartmouth College case decades ago which was written in exquisite language.
Per reports, Rama’s case was filed recently. Local papers and radio stations carried the news of four Cebu City employees resorting to the media because they have not been paid their salaries for 10 months. The reporting was done in April, I think. But, the news outlets did not mention of an Ombudsman case being filed. Just the same, prescinding from this reportage, I would claim that the Ombudsman order was fast. And that is good. We now congratulate the new officialdom of this constitutional body. For a long time, people bewailed the seeming lethargy of this office. Times must have changed. Cases filed with the Ombudsman are now attended to with amazing dispatch.
Times though apparently changed the Dartmouth College concept of due process of hearing before condemning. According to reports, Rama was not informed that a case was filed against him. If true, there was nothing for the mayor to answer or account for. He should not have been condemned without being heard. While preventive suspension is not theoretically condemnation, it should not have been issued without at least hearing the side of Rama. The mayor, per Dartmouth College, should have been given a copy of whatever complaint and required to comment on it.
After studying the answer, the Ombudsman might find probable cause to suspend the mayor preventively, but there could also be a chance for the office to find that the complaint had no legal anchor specially that there are reports where the complainants only wanted to hold responsible certain city officials but not the mayor. That is the meaning of due process. In suspending Rama without hearing him first, times have changed Dartmouth College.