Truth and justice in the judiciary

Erap’s response to the charge of plunder reminds us of an incident that happened in a small court in the United States. Unlike Erap who wanted absolutely no defense whatsoever, the defendant in the US case announced that he would represent himself in court. Everytime he was asked a question by the prosecution, he would question the prosecutor. The judge sternly told him that he was under obligation to answer the questions of the prosecutor and that he had absolutely no right to question the prosecutor. After this admonition from the judge, the prosecutor asked his next question, "What is your reputation in the community for telling the truth?" The accused replied, "What does the truth have to do with this court?"

Courts of law generally decide only the immediate point submitted for consideration. Issues concerning the shortcomings or a defect in our existing laws, should not be addressed in our court of laws, it should be presented in Congress so that the law may be altered.

In the case of Erap, what he is questioning is the very integrity of the judges who are going to conduct his hearing. And he is not taking his case to court. He wants the mob to decide. Fifty years before Christ, Publilius Eyrus already said, "He who flies from trial confesses his crime." Like Pilate, he is questioning truth and like Pilate, he won’t listen to the answer.

Erap still maintains that he was not ousted as President. He just went on leave. He says that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was only sworn in as acting President. These are matters that can be clarified in court and not questions that can be determined by a mob. If he is just on leave as President, what is he doing in jail? Can a President charged with plunder retain his position as president?

There has only been one real EDSA and that was the People’s Power Revolution that marked the downfall of the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. Erap did not fall because of so-called EDSA II. It was the plunder case that justified his ouster as President.

In court cases, the opposing parties always say that truth is on their side. The party that should win should be the party that is on the side of truth. The job of our courts is to establish the truth. It was G.W. Leibniz who first pointed out that there are two kinds of truth – those of reasoning and factual truths. In court, both kinds have to be confirmed. It is our courts that will determine the guilt or innocence of Erap. The mob is in no position to determine such a thing.