Wednesday, October 4, 2006

A Crime With No Criminals--Making a Jackass of the Supreme Court

Ricky Carandang of ABSCBN News notes the existence of a "cognitive dissonance" between the finding of the Supreme Court that the Law was broken by a "glaring grave abuse of discretion by Comelec" and the subsequent finding of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez that there was no Lawbreaker.

Indeed.

How can a Law have been broken, yet there is no Law Breaker to be arrested or investigated?

How can a Crime have been committed, yet there is no criminal to be prosecuted?

This absurd situation currently obtains because the Ombudsman has effectively nullified a January 13, 2004 Decision of the Supreme Court that the Commission on Elections committed a "glaring grave abuse of discretion" in signing and consummating an illegal contract with a shady, unknown corporation for an alleged "automated counting system."

Ricky was talking to Atty. Lila de Lima, who usually makes sense about things legal, but was full of blither-and-blather-and-gobbledygook about what the Ombudsman has wrought. (But she was struggling with it.) She gives the impression that the Ombudsman basically RE-TRIED the case of Comelec and its rotten deal with MegaPacific Consortium and found everybody innocent.

It all boils down to this: Someone is making a Jackass of the Supreme Court. The only question now, is will they continue to wear the ears and tail just pinned on them?

13 comments:

ricelander said...

"It all boils down to this: Someone is making a jackass of the Supreme Court..." Hehe They made a jackass of themselves one time by such legal carpentry called "constructive resignation" so I guess it isn't something new except that this time somebody else is forcing it on them.

I do not wish to comment on who has the better legal argument, for superior arguments do not necessarily win, but in whom the power of last say is reposed. What I think happened was this: The SC voided the contract on automation for another "real" reason-- to defeat FPJ. It then has to sustain that decision by ordering the Ombudsman to conduct its own investigation. Problem here is if the contract is finally voided, what happens then with the payment made to Mega-Pacific and the hardwares delivered? The Ombudsman, inferring from previous actuations, is not the kind who could possibly allow incurring the ire of very powerful people and possibly causing some canaries to sing. How will the SC react now? I am waiting, holding my breath...

HILLBLOGGER said...

Hi Dean,


Could you please tell me if the following post yours? It was the latest comment to a blog of mine "Asia's new Bastusan Republic".

Just that am a bit surprised coz the comments didn't seem to jibe with your any of your writings on the issue of Gloria & her governance at all. - Thanks. HB


"
DJB said...
I support you! Keep doing what you're doing! Let us join with the communists and Erap to overthrow this dwende! Sino ba s'ya? Ang liit-liit lang n'ya tapos binabastus n'ya tayong mga intelehente na para bang isang masamang amo ng mga aso na sinisipa-sipa 'yung aso (si Gloria ang amo tayo ang aso). Let's take her out, by any means, be it assassination, overthrow the government like EDSA tres, or by legal means! We can do it Anne if we band together! Are you with me?

Monday, October 02, 2006 9:12:06 PM"

Toots Ople said...

DJB, the ombudsman's decision reminds me of that movie, "Hollow Man." It had a rape scene in it with Kevin Bacon as the "invisible" rapist. Parang ganun din ito --> a crime was committed but the culprits are "invisible", and perhaps, even "invincible".

postigo luna said...

No law was broken, despite everyone's howling. All that the SC accused the COMELEC of was of violating it's own bidding rules. Those bidding rules aren't laws but regulatory issuances specific to an agency. So let's not muddle the issue by making it appear that some Law was broken, because no laws were.

If no laws were broken, how can we say that there is a crime with no criminals? But to stick to the Ombudsman's resolution, which I hope you've read, it says that the question of whether the bidder was eligible hinged on whether there was a consortium.

The SC said there was no consortium. But the Ombudsman noted that even the justices themselves could not agree on that. there are many ways of interpreting the law on the matter of consortia because no specific law addresses the issue. so, the Ombudsman said, is it really a crime if the COMELEC interpreted the law differently from the SC? It would be if there were evidence of malice and bad faith and so on. But without that evidence, and there was none, there was only a misinterpretation and NOT a crime.

It's a concept of law, djb, and one that does not necessarily make sense to people enamored with the concept of poetic justice. just like tech isn't always understood even by those who make daily use of it. now i know its not as crucial to understand tech as it is to understand law, but the same bedrock principle applies: people don't always understand the workings of the things that affect their lives.
And just because people don't get it, doesn't mean it's wrong.

As for the Supreme Court's reaction? No comment. Too early to say if they'll come out later on with guns blazing, but their reticence now only tells me that this decision is solid enough to have given them pause.

Juan said...

DJB,
Borra spilling the beans as state witness scared the shit out of Gloria and the Rats.

OMB committed a criminal decision.

The 'criminal' is the Ombudsman.

The master mind is in Malacanang!

We don't have a gov't, we have a criminal syndicate running this country!

Tom said...

jm: Your observations are right on, in my opinion. Perhaps the "families" will "go to the mattresses." Where is Michael Corleone when he is needed?

Ocha said...

Yes...Tom is rigth, i am agree whit Him :-)

kulas said...

Kung tama ang sinasabi ni postigo na patakaran at hindi batas ang nilabag, may punto siya. Walang ngang nilabag na batas. Pero bakit ni walang man lang bad boys, stand at the corner. Business as usual na lang.

Paano na yan kung basta na lang labagin ang mga patakaran, lalo na sa kaso ng bidding na napalaking halagang pera, pera ng sambayanan, ang nakasalalay? Okay na ba yan?

Teka, gusto kong sundin ng lahat ang mga patakaran at batas. Pero okay lang kung yung kamag-anak, tauhan o amo ko mismo ang lumabag. In that case, misunderstanding lang yun.

Hinde ba inaanak sa kasal ni abalos ang kasali diyan sa nanalo ng bidding? Wala bang kwestyon ng malisya diyan?

Inayos ni ombudsgirl ang kaso. Mauulit yan dahil marami pang katiwalian kaso ng mga kurap na tao ang dadaan sa kanya.

Tsk, tsk, sayang. si Luli na lang sana niligawan ko. E kung mapaibig mo yun, siguradong puwede ka na ring mag hari-harian sa pinas. Walang ka pang patakaran o batas na kailangang sundin.

Bokyo said...

Kung tama yung sinasabi ni Mr. Luna, bakit nasuspinde yung Mayor at mga konsehal ng Pasay? Kawawa naman tayo kung ganon na lang ang pamantayan natin. Puwede palang gumawa ng anomalya o sadyain mong magkamali ka sa tungkulin at iapply mo ang standard na ganoon o kaya sabihin mo na lang na ginawa mo yon out of "good faith".

postigo luna said...

Parang kawawa tayo, bokyo. Pero kung ikaw na ang inuusig, kung ikaw na ang inaakusahan, ginagarantiya ko sa iyo, magagamit mo rin ang good faith na depensa - na hangga't hindi napapatunayang meron kang masamang intensyon, dapat tanggapin na wala kang masamang intensiyon. Iyan ang isa sa pinaka pundasyon ng tinatawag nating presumption of innocence. At yang presumption na iyan ay hindi lamang nag-a-apply sa mga taong pinaniniwalaan mong inosente (tulad ni Trinidad na sumailalim lamang sa preventive o pansamantalang suspensiyon) kundi pati na rin sa mga taong kinamumuhian mo.

Bokyo said...

Kung ako ang naakusahan o kung ako ang nagkamali, I will take responsibility for what I have done. Kung inaakala ko na nakaapekto ng grabe ang pagkakamali ko, gaya ng nangyari sa ACM's I would have resigned. I will not hide under the protection of having it done out of "good faith". Isa pa ang isang nagtatrabaho out of good faith always bears in his mind na hindi siya magkamali o kaya ay laging sumunod sa tamang patakaran. Yung mga taong ganoon ang handa kong ipaglaban.

postigo luna said...

And there's the rub, bokyo. What if you truly believed you did nothing wrong? Will you bow before public opinion that you were wrong, despite your own belief na tama ka?

Kaya tayo may mga processong judicial ay para madiskubre natin kung may kriminal na pagkakamali nga ba, dahil lahat ng tao nagkakamali. sa pagkakaalam ko, ang santo papa lang ang mayroon tinatawag na infallibility at yun ay pagdating lamang sa mga bagay bagay na nauugnay sa pananampalatayang romano katoliko.

Kaya't kahit gaano ka kaingat, meron at meron pa ring posibilidad na magkakamali ka, lalo't ang pinaguusapan ay ang pag-interpret ng isang malabong punto ng batas.

Bokyo said...

Tama ka, you don't have to bow to public opinion kung alam mong tama ka. Pero SC na ang nagpasya na mali ang ginawa nila eh. To that, they just have to bow to higher authorities. Ang sinasabi ko kung sa akin mangyayari ang ganoon, I would have to resign, taking responsibility for my actions. Masyadong malaki ang involved eh. Also, para ng sa ganoon kung mahal mo ang institution na pinamumunuan mo, ang iba siguro may magagawa pa para maisalba ang tungkuling dapat mo mang tuparin. Sa kaso ng mga involve ano pa ang magagawa nila eh sinarado na ng SC ang anumang magagawa nila para sa automation halimbawa.