Enough is enough!

In order to get clarity about the case of Sen. Rodante Marcoleta and ex-congressman Mike Defensor, I consulted with an all knowing lawyer who is a cousin of the all knowing doctor a.k.a Atty. AI, cousin of Dr. Google.

Please don’t mock me for this because if you have recently checked what real life lawyers and doctors charge for consultation and acceptance fees, chances are you will go online first because Atty. AI and Dr. Google are both pro bono!

While the chances of getting the best information or evaluation might generously be 50/50, if people automatically go inside stores like moths attracted to fire because of the “SALE” sign, I see nothing wrong in going to AI.

So yesterday, I finally googled the definition of “plunder” under Philippine laws, and this is what came out online:

Key elements of plunder

To be convicted of plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 (The Anti-Plunder Act), the prosecution must establish the following:

The Offender: The crime must be committed by a public officer, sometimes in connivance with family members, business associates or subordinates. Private individuals can also be held liable if they participate in the commission of the offense.

The Monetary Threshold: The aggregate total value of the amassed ill-gotten wealth must be at least P75 million.

The Acts: The wealth must be amassed through a “combination or series of overt or criminal acts,” such as:

• Misappropriation, conversion or misuse of public funds.

• Receiving commissions, gifts or kickbacks.

• Illegal disposition or conveyance of government assets.

• Taking undue advantage of official position to unjustly enrich oneself.

I went through this line by line regarding possible acts that constitute plunder. Line 1 clearly does not apply to the case of Senator Marcoleta and ex-cong. Defensor since the charge sheet does not refer to public funds being misappropriated or misused, it refers to campaign contributions.

The ombudsman might be on a fishing expedition by focusing on Line 2 about receiving commissions, gifts or kickbacks. These are acts and transactions of a private kind involving private funds that are paid or given in exchange for a contract, project or decision to the advantage of the gift giver.

In the case of Marcoleta and Defensor, it was all about campaign contributions, given as gift between friends and political ally. Marcoleta still needed to be elected and win the senatorial race back then.

I don’t recall the charge sheet talking about illegal disposition or conveyance of government assets nor taking undue advantage of official position to unjustly enrich one’s self.

From the looks of it, this whole case can boomerang at the DOJ and the ombudsman or be kicked out when it reaches the Supreme Court.

What I’m curious to know is, can and will Marcoleta and Defensor sue for wrongful suit, unjust vexation and sue to collect for millions in damages against each and every individual who charged them.

If they are cleared, I hope they do, so we can put a stop to political witch hunting, the practice of casually filing charges against political opponents to harass or discredit them. As they say: Enough is enough.

*      *      *

Time and again, we have heard the statement: “Justice in the Philippines is only for the rich.”

After hearing how an RTC judge “dismissed” the paupers’ case against Martin Romualdez for failure to pay the P200-million filing fee, what else are Filipinos expected to believe?

Let’s not jump the gun or pull out the rope to hang the judge. Unpopular as her decision may have been, she was effectively just following the law and that is what we should all be looking into because a lot of laws and practices in the justice system can only be afforded by the rich.

For instance, I learned from a lawyer that getting a top notch lawyer or law firm to sue any of the top 100 corporations in the Philippines is almost impossible because all of the top 10 to 20 law firms, if not more, are generally under contract or retainer by the corporations.

By doing this, any complainant or aggrieved party would be clutching at straws in order to find a powerful law firm. But don’t lose hope, I remember a PAO lawyer who beat an Attorney de Campanilla in the past.

There is also the vile acceptance fee. Imagine being an injured party and having to pay out more money even before a lawyer does any work. I don’t remember the details very well, but the common practice of charging an acceptance fee of P50,000, P100,000, P200,000 or 20 percent of the value under litigation, etc.

Then there are the “taxi” law firms. Aside from charging a “flag down” fare with the acceptance fee, they run a meter on every paperwork, consultation and appearance in court.

Just check how long it takes to get an annulment even when the couple involved eagerly wish to be rid of each other, or how long a simple change of name, status or judicial settlement drags on from months to years.

Is it any wonder that Filipinos mock the justice system for the rich as “just-tiis” for the poor?

Sadly, nothing much can be hoped for because the legislators make sure the laws protect the rich, deny the poor and neuter the courts.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]