Separate but equal branches of government have just sent mixed messages to us, the confused populace.
On one hand, we have the executive branch glorifying lawyer Larry Gadon by appointing him czar of the anti-poverty crusade. On the other, we have the judicial branch remonstrating the same Gadon with the ultimate admonishment: Disbarment from the legal profession. What are we innocent citizens to make of it?
In his appointment papers, BBM appointed Gadon as presidential adviser for poverty alleviation (whatever that means). The Palace press release touts his “legal expertise” and “wealth of experience as … legal counsel in diverse sectors” as pertinent to his expected contribution “to the formulation of innovative and sustainable poverty alleviation strategies.”
Germane to his appointment was Gadon’s stint in a couple of law firms (mainly his own), where he supposedly “showcased his legal acumen and commitment to serving the public interest”.
In turn, the Supreme Court, the other branch we are concerned with, by a unanimous vote of 15-0, threw a sucker punch when it disbarred Gadon given his “misogynistic, sexist, abusive and repetitive intemperate language” against journalist Raissa Robles. His self-made video rant against Robles was deemed “indisputably scandalous that it discredits the legal profession” and his punishment, fitting, considering that “lawyers are to avoid scandalous behavior, whether in private or public life.”
As if the disbarment was not enough (and maybe it isn’t), the Supreme Court also cited Gadon in direct contempt for his accusations of partiality and bias against Justices Marvic Leonen and Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, and mentioned that he had a grand total of 10 other cases pending before the Bar Confidant and the disciplinary tribunal of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Such a mess. If you recall, during the presidential elections where BBM ran, Gadon posted a video on social media blasting Raissa Robles with expletives not fit to print. Gadon was defending BBM from allegations of tax non-payment, and his idea of mounting a defense was to unleash abusive language against the messenger.
So we are told, he is morally unfit to be a lawyer. And we are also told, he is good enough to care about the poor. What are we to make of this?
When we ordinary citizens are given conflicting signals by different branches of government, the necessary reaction is to choose. Which side are we to believe in? Sometimes ideals will guide us. Sometimes blind loyalty will determine our choice. What say you then, citizens?
What does this Supreme Court verdict mean for BBM? Pundit and economics expert Solita Monsod has cleverly pointed out that the justices now composing the Supreme Court are appointed mostly by the former president Duterte. She cites a study that has analyzed cases decided by the high court, and pointed to seeming bias for whichever administration has appointed the justices.
If so, then this is a handicap for BBM, as he didn’t have a hand in the appointment of the justices, and of course, they would not feel beholden, or even deferential, to him. One theory we can then posit as to why, on the matter of Gadon, that branches fell on the opposite side of the fence (and now BBM or his cousin Martin may have to think very carefully about the role of the judiciary, considering VP Sara Duterte is patiently waiting in the wings, waiting until she can take the presidency).
Meanwhile, BBM has this mess on his hands, a mess he fully took on considering that the slew of cases against Gadon came about as a result of his campaign, and BBM was fully cognizant of their existence even before the announcement of Gadon’s appointment. Will BBM take the time to acknowledge that there is a mess and “fix” it, or will he ignore the furor, wait for it to die down, and move on to the next hot-button issue?
In turn, will Gadon be able to overcome the ignominy of being a disbarred lawyer, that fact hounding him at every public appearance? Or will he be oblivious to the jeers and the ridicule? More importantly, what kind of anti-poverty czar will he be? Will he be truly pro-poor? Will he give up his substantial salary and donate it to the poor? Will the poor actually be alleviated?
Let’s see how wealthy the poor will become at the end of his tenure. And let’s see who really gets wealthy at the end of the day.