Amnesty

Instead of debating about a general amnesty, concerned parties should work for the speedy administration of justice in the case of deposed President Joseph Estrada.

Erap lost the presidency less than midway through his term on accusations of large-scale corruption. He has languished in detention for over six years now, learning the language of ducks in his boredom.

Despite his ouster, he has retained his mass base. And while his loyalists may not be the type who will gather at EDSA for four days until he is back in the seat of power, they remain a formidable force during elections.

This explains why politicians from both sides of the fence went on pilgrimages to the Tanay rest house where Erap is detained without bail, courting his endorsement during this year’s campaign. In the absence of a conviction, those politicians could not be accused of waltzing with a plunderer.

This could also explain why, even before the Sandiganbayan has resolved the case, there is this talk about amnesty for Erap.

An amnesty is supposed to cover only political offenses committed by enemies of the state. This makes Sen. Antonio Trillanes, who is detained for the Oakwood mutiny, eligible upon conviction but not Erap. But there is talk of a general amnesty for those convicted of heinous offenses that used to warrant capital punishment, such as plunder. Still, a conviction is needed — something that has not happened in the case of Erap and his son and co-accused, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada.

In our weak republic, we are slow to prosecute and reluctant to impose punishment. This weakness has created undeserving martyrs who successfully project themselves as victims of political persecution.

Instead of debating whether Erap can qualify for amnesty, the Sandiganbayan should be prodded to resolve the plunder case ASAP.

*  *  *

How long does it take to resolve a corruption case in this country? If we are to go by the record of cases against the Marcoses, Erap still has a long wait ahead. The latest word though is that the Sandiganbayan decision will be handed down next month.

The decision was expected a month ago, at around the time that full-page advertisements came out in most of the daily broadsheets based in Manila. The ads, placed by an agency that has refused to identify its client, called on the nation to move on, and was interpreted by many quarters to mean that Erap would be convicted.

Amid the consequent firestorm, and with the ministerial meetings of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations approaching, no court decision came out.

Now the ASEAN economic ministers’ meeting and the death anniversary of Ninoy Aquino are approaching. After these comes the anniversary of the declaration of martial law. For an administration long preoccupied with political survival, any event that invites mass protest actions must be avoided.

When should this decision be handed down? Christmas 2007? Or better yet, Christmas 2010?

If Erap is convicted and gets absolute pardon by Christmas 2009, in which case his crime will be extinguished, can he run for president again? A pardon at the end of 2009 gives him time to file a certificate of candidacy and campaign for the 2010 elections.

People engage in such speculation amid the long wait for the resolution of his plunder case.

Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. clarified yesterday — without mentioning names — that his proposed amnesty covered only political offenses.

Erap’s son Jinggoy nevertheless welcomed the proposal, although he lamented that it took more than six years for anyone to come up with the idea.

What Senator Jinggoy should be lamenting is the glacial pace of justice in this country. And what the public should be lamenting is the nation’s failure to enforce laws and impose punishment commensurate to the crime. Partisan political considerations always get in the way. This is true in the case of the Marcoses. We are seeing it in the case of Erap.

It takes ages to resolve even a rebellion case, which has led to the spectacle of an indicted mutineer being elected to the Senate but unable to serve.

*  *  *

The failure to punish any of the Marcoses for corruption, and now the indecision on the fate of Estrada are among the biggest factors behind the persistence of graft at all levels of government. The message is that you can take the money and run, and you can even be elected to public office or appointed to the Cabinet.

Rapists, carjackers and smugglers have been sent to Congress. Corruption is part of the culture. With the quality of the political leadership, you can understand why there is a reluctance to punish public officials for plunder — especially a president deposed through a military-backed popular revolt.

Both Malacañang and the judiciary insist that the fate of Erap at this time is not a political decision, even if his acquittal can plunge the administration into yet another crisis of legitimacy. If this is true, the judiciary should rise to the occasion and resolve this case quickly. The nation has waited long enough.

At the same time, leaders of the judiciary should draw up measures that will speed up the administration of justice.

This unprecedented plunder case should have been a showcase of the efficiency of the criminal justice system. Instead it has turned into a showcase of everything that is wrong with the administration of justice, particularly the snail’s pace and doubts on judicial independence.

Trial balloons on amnesty only add to the confusion and should be junked.