Narvasa’s inferiority - GOTCHA by Jarius Bondoc

I relinquish space for an article by the esteemed Dean Amado D. Valdez of the UE-College of Law.

* * *

When the trial of the century of the case of People vs Joseph Ejercito Estrada unfolds on Dec. 7, a seat of honor in the gallery would have been reserved for the only living retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines: Andres Narvasa.

As Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., presiding over the impeachment tribunal, looks around the Senate hall, he would then notice the grey hair of a venerable man, Narvasa, and muse into history Shakespeare’s words: "There sits a judge that no king can corrupt."

But this is not how history’s pages will be written. Instead, a footnote would say of a former justice who preferred the law over propriety. This is a harsh verdict in Chinese proverbial literature because, to men of wisdom and respect, "propriety governs a superior man, law the inferior man."

Ironically, history’s harsh judgment on the former Chief Justice is handmade by Narvasa himself. When he accepted the defense of Estrada against what he calls "mob rule", he chose to throw propriety to the wind and invoked the Constitution.

Constitutional protections of the rights of the accused under our adversary system of justice are at times obstacles to the search for truth in a trial. A lawyer always demands the truth from his client for his effective defense. When the client reveals the truth, it is the lawyer’s professional duty to advise him not to testify during the trial on matters that will incriminate him. After all, he’s presumed innocent and the burden to prove his guilt is on the shoulder of the prosecution. He can therefore remain silent and let the accuser prove his guilt.

Now as an ordinary lawyer, in the sense that he is not acting as a former Chief Justice, Narvasa is presumed to be doing what a defense lawyer is unquestionably sworn to do. He is going through the charges, sifting through the volume of evidence, looking into technicalities to damn the evidence and the process that will convict his client.

By now he has held talks with his client, President Joseph Estrada. He has already known the truth about the millions of jueteng money and excise tax commission going into the pockets of his client. He has known the truth about the ownership of the mansions, the millions of money lost or won in a night of mah-jongg, and the lifestyle of Estrada’s mistresses – hardly sustainable from the salary of a President and other legitimate sources, granting he earns substantial money from legitimate businesses. By now Narvasa has already advised Estrada on what to admit and deny.

Such free and full exchange of information and advice with a client is perfectly legal to establish an effective and credible defense. This kind of communication is even protected by the so-called "sacred trust" of confidentiality. Without this protection, the constitutional right to counsel is futile.

Thus, notwithstanding that Estrada may have confessed to him his guilt, or has volunteered more incriminating information to his counsel, which the public would never know, or has confessed his unfitness to stay on as President, a "defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth . . ." His mission is to "insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty."

A clear example of the priority of the professional obligation of a lawyer over the truth is the case of a defendant in a murder case in Lake Pleasant, New York, who informed his lawyers about two other persons he had killed and where their bodies had been hidden.

Despite having seen and photographed the bodies, the lawyers did not report the crime to the police and even denied the same information to the parents of the victim who inquired from them about their missing daughter. Despite the public outrage and the sense of moral duty to disclose the information to the grieving parents, it was held that the lawyers behaved properly and ethically under the professional duty of confidentiality.

An ordinary lawyer, whether or not the case is ordinary or extraordinary, directs his efforts and talents in acquitting his client. He deals in such issues as dismissal, admissibility, relevancy, competence and qualification of witnesses, credibility, quantum of evidence, the bias of the judges or jurors, the number of votes to convict or to acquit.

And then he looks forward to that day of acquittal to embrace his client with tears of relief rolling down his aging face. The following day he happily goes to his bank.

We perished these thoughts for Narvasa when he retired as Chief Justice. We placed him on a pedestal of statesmanship above the concerns of narrow partisanship of lawyers. We yearn to hear his commentaries on the nation’s socio-political culture and the reign of law as they affect the economy and the moral fiber of the people.

When the newly inaugurated President Franklin D. Roosevelt called on the retired Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. of the United States Supreme Court, he found him reading Plato. Roosevelt reverently asked: "Why do you read Plato, Mr. Justice?" He replied, "To improve my mind, Mr. President."

Is it remote that one morning, President Estrada would also call on Narvasa and find him reading the Bible? Estrada would irreverently ask his employed counsel, the retired Chief Justice: "Why are you not reading my case instead?"

* * *

INTERACTION. Tony Reyes, Everett, Wash.: Impeachment can be very expensive. Precious time and money can be saved if he resigns now, so the economy will suffer no more and the difficult task of recovering from his mess can begin.

Samuel Lim, Cebu: He won’t resign. He claims his conscience is clear. Rally instead for the resignation of remaining decent men in the Cabinet.

Bess Icasiano, un.org: Filipinos working in the UN headquarters feel embarrassed when officers ask them why we elected a womanizer and gambler into the highest office.

Esmeraldo Cato, Woodside, NY: His lawyers are trying to quash the case when Erap himself said he wants to confront his accusers. It just shows he’s guilty as hell.

Paul Marion Gonzaga, hotmail.com: If Chavit did not blow the whistle, somebody would still be getting a monthly jueteng payola, somebody’s bingo will be underway, somebody would not have to return his balato.

Ana Quintos Sy-Quia, mydestiny.net: Marcos loyalists distancing themselves from Erap do not merit a cent. They’re angry because Erap called their beloved Marcos a dictator. Hello?

Thank you to the many others who took time out to write.

* * *

You can e-mail comments to [email protected]