When the Leftwing "Batasan 5", for instance, won the first round of their bout with the DOJ after Makati RTC Judge Jenny Delorino dismissed on procedural grounds the Justice Department’s amended complaint charging the five Party List members of the House of Representatives with "rebellion," Secretary Gonzalez challenged the group of Rep. Satur Ocampo, Teddy Casino, et al, to "go back to the mountains!" (Mamundok na lang sila where they belong, he had growled).
Such a remark should not have come from a Secretary of Justice, who has to remember that he is an alter-ego of the President herself and must be judicious in speech no matter how exasperated.
Makati RTC Judge Jenny Delorino, for her part, should not have yielded to pressure to inhibit herself regarding the DOJ’s rebellion charges against the so-called "Batasan 5," a complaint which includes former Senator Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan. Neither should Delorino have allowed herself to be "disqualified" by the DOJ. Not wishing to go into legalese, a discussion both pompous and boring to the regular reader, let me just say that the law covers two types of "inhibition" on the part of a judge. The first kind is mandatory pursuant to specific grounds which are enumerated; the second is a voluntary inhibition, when the judge in effect quits and sends the case back to be "raffled" off to another judge.
Many apolitical and impartial lawyers I’ve talked to were unanimous in asserting that Delorino should have proceeded with hearing the case instead of withdrawing. For one thing, it sets a bad precedent, because in future, RTC judges – cowed or "bullied" from upstairs – may simply give in and pass the buck to some other magistrate, citing lame excuses like "delicadeza" and so forth.
Judge Delorino has both experience and a good reputation, having worked in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court before joining the judiciary as an RTC judge in Dumaguete, preceding her transfer to Makati. Her having issued an adverse ruling against the government ought to have been respected, but instead the lady magistrate was apparently pressured to drop that "hot potato" of a case and pass it over to another judge.
Our courts are not "kangaroo" courts, expected to be the executioners of the government, but temples of justice (forgive the old-fashioned and flowery turn of phrase) in which independent-minded, honest and competent judges do their best to render impartial justice.
That’s the long and short of it.
Abcede has been appearing on TV almost nightly, as well as peppering the newspaper newsdesks with press releases which contain so-called "official" pronouncements even though Ricky is not the PCGG Chairman. In effect, he apparently bypasses the Chairman of that collegial body, Mr. Camilo Sabio.
You may have seen him on television just the other day, exchanging almost insulting words with Senator Juan Ponce Enrile (no push-over himself when it comes to verbal tussles), as well as sideswiping Party List Congresswoman Etta Rosales. Abcede, admittedly, has a sharp tongue and does not hesitate to use it. He must have been rewarded with his PCGG appointment by President GMA for his TV appearances during the Estrada "impeachment" trial in the Senate, and boasts close connections with certain members of the Arroyo family.
In any event, here’s a typical Ricky-ism. Just after the Supreme Court promulgated its en banc decision ordering the reconveyance to the government of the Cojuangco-owned Prime Holdings, Inc. shares registered in the Philippine Telecommunications Investments (PITC), Abcede announced that the PCGG is not interested in hanging on to the 111,145 shares in the PITC estimated to be worth P20 billion. He declared, as if he spoke for the entire collegial body, that the PCGG would dispose of those shares and get the "best deal" for the government.
Didn’t Ricky consult his office calendar? When Abcede announced that he planned to dispose of the PITC, the 15-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration had not yet even elapsed, which clearly means that the decision was not yet final and executory. Worse, Abcede capped his statement with the assertion that he expects the Supreme Court to deny a motion for reconsideration. Wow!
Lately, Abcede has been saying that the government is eyeing two of the 13 board seats in the PLDT when that giant firm holds its board election next month. He opined that before the PLDT’s board meeting in mid-June, he expects the Supreme Court to have already denied the Motion for Reconsideration of Prime Holdings.
Sanamagan. First, Commissioner Abcede preempts the High Court with his public statement that he expects the Motion for Reconsideration (which had still to be filed at the time he made his astonishing statement) to be denied.
Now, he sets a time frame for the Justices of the Supreme Court to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration of Prime Holdings, when he says the Court will decide the issue before the PLDT meeting in mid-June to elect the firm’s new Directors. Would it be unfair to ask: Is Mr. Abcede contemplating a Board seat in the PLDT for himself?
Given the estimated P20 billion value of the (Tonyboy) Cojuangco shares in the PLDT which the Court earlier ruled must be turned over to the government, and the intricate legal and factual issues raised, the High Court should not be stampeded into resolving the pending motions submitted. In fact, as in other important cases decided by the Court, the parties who have asked to be heard on oral arguments should be allowed to argue these motions before the High Tribunal.
If this opportunity to be heard is denied Prime Holdings, the impression may be created that the government is salivating to immediately get hold of those valuable shares so as to be able to "sell" them to some favored buyer for a price less than what they are really worth.
A caveat: any transaction which is grossly disadvantageous to the government is subject to the anti-graft law. Beware.
One has to say that Mr. Abcede and his locquacious tongue invites both publicity and controversy. He launched himself the other week into a project to make a settlement with the Marcoses – in sum, for the government to make a deal with Madam Imelda Romualdez Marcos and family in order to "settle" the cases against them which he said had been languishing in the Sandiganbayan for the past 20 years. Abcede trumpeted that it’s time the government did what he alleged to be the practical thing – strike a deal with the Marcoses.
Interestingly enough, one of the guests at the housewarming of his new apartment was no less than Imeldific herself. I guess Commissioner Abcede has a wide circle of friends and acquaintances.
Yet, as pointed out by former Senate President Jovito Salonga, the PCGG’s first Chairman when it was created by ex-President Corazon C. Aquino to sequester the illegally-acquired Marcos wealth and corporations, any compromise agreement with the Marcoses "is completely against the 1998 decision of the Supreme Court in Chavez vs. PCGG (G.R. 130718)" – a ruling penned by then Associate Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, who is now Chief Justice of the High Court.
If Senator Salonga, who certainly knows the law a bit better than Commissioner Abcede is correct, then Abcede’s much-publicized plan to make a deal with the Marcoses is clearly against a Supreme Court ruling.
We understand that the PCGG is represented by the Office of the Solicitor General in cases before the Supreme Court. What can the present Solicitor General, the Hon. Eduardo Nachura, say of Abcede’s announced plan of negotiating a deal with the Marcoses?
What would the surviving victims of Martial Law or the bereaved families of those who perished in the night – have to say?
Memories are short in this country, and many are inclined to forgive and forget. But there are some wounds that never heal.
Then there’s the widespread skepticism about any "big deal" made by the government in a controversial case. Did anybody make a "profit" from it?