Erap's Filial Duty

I agree with MLQ3, writing in PDI this morning (Referendum on Estrada) that Erap should run for the Senate in 2007:

He should run for the Senate. The government cannot stop him from campaigning from his detention house. And since his trial has become a hostage to the political survival of the government, he owes it to himself and his supporters—and a country still divided—to be judged according to the jury of millions. Though in the end I think the best justification for this route is a humanitarian one: which is, that Doña Mary Ejercito deserves the chance to see the people render an unquestionable judgment on her son.

I think it is Erap's filial duty not only to his mother, but to all the Filipino people, both his supporters and otherwise, to end the embarrassing and shameless charade that the Supreme Court has put this country through since 20 January 2001 and his subsequent arrest and detention. The High Court would rescue garapatas on the PCGG's hide, like Rick Abcede, but a democratically elected President they would allow to rot in jail for over four years running. And of course the case has not even reached their dock to dark their door. It is a chicken that must never be allowed to roost where Hilario Davide laid the egg of supreme judicial ERROR on 20 January 2001.

CAN ERAP GET A FAIR TRIAL? SPEED, seems to me, an essential ingredient of a Fair Trial. If the man was DEPOSED as President by the illegal ACT of a Chief Justice peremptorially and unconstitutionally swearing in the Vice President and he has been under arrest for over four years, why can't he be convicted, sentenced and everyone freed of the whole Edsa 2 thrombosis? It is silly, as some people claim that it is because Erap himself is "DELAYING" his trial. The simple truth is that the Supreme Court cannot fairly try Erap even after the Sandiganbayan is finished with him. That point will never be reached because they know the impossibility of their ever handling the case of Joseph Estrada. It is not within their legal, moral or intellectual JURISDICTION to reverse the existence of a case that the Supreme Court cannot try!

Why can't the Case of Joseph Estrada be fairly tried by the Supreme Court? Why, because they have already essentially PREJUDGED him in the two unreversed Decisions of Estrada vs. Arroyo (March, 2001) and Estrada vs. Desierto (April, 2001).
These cases ABSOLVE the Supreme Court of any participation or culpability in the events of Edsa Dos, yet the Justices of the Supreme Court were the PRINCIPAL PLAYERS in that historic event. To acquit Erap would mean to convict Davide and reverse these decisions; it would logically necessitate another regime change and the overthrow of the Supreme Court itself. So can Erap get a fair trial? It is absurd to think so.

JURY OF MILLIONS: Erap's Case is really and literally Supreme Court Vs. President of the Philippines. But as we all know there IS no Higher Court to adjudicate such a case! Or is there??? Of course there is: democratic elections, the Court of the people's sovereignty, what MLQ3 calls, the "jury of millions."

LET THE PEOPLE JUDGE I also like the idea of Erap running (even for dog-catcher of San Juan!)because I believe Erap and GMA can make poetic justice together (the kind that happens in matter-anti-matter collisions!. If Erap threw his hat into the ring for 2007, he could energize what appears to be a demoralized and fragmented opposition. I think that keeping Erap in jail all these long years has been the most brilliant and devious part of the Macapagal-Arroyo strategy for hanging on to power because it's like keeping the Opposition's champion in a perpetual state of suspended animation as a detained, accused Plunderer on trial for heinous crimes! Erap needs to free himself, but that can only be done at the ballot box.Besides, only Erap could lead an Opposition that could realistically defeat the Palace (with its stranglehold on the Government and Treasury), in the democratic contests up ahead, whether it be 2007 national and local elections, or a Plebiscite for a new Constitution and a change in the form of government.