- Advertisement -

Batas Mauricio

CAN anyone tell me how many electoral proclamations and elections have we already undergone as a Filipino nation? And can anyone tell me, sincerely and truthfully, whether those who have been elected and proclaimed have made a difference in uplifting the lives of Filipinos?

- Advertisement -

Has the Philippines really experienced economic growth already? Have poor Filipinos improved their lives? I guess everyone knows the answers to these questions. So, what is the use of elections and proclamations?

It would seem only those who have been elected–by means fair or foul–and proclaimed, and taken office, benefitted from all these political and electoral exercises. But as far as the ordinary Filipino on the street is concerned, it is clear no benefit whatsoever has ever descended on him.

Yes, and I am saying this without fear of contradiction: ever since the Philippines started electing its officials from the start of its becoming a republic, or a supposedly free nation, from the Spanish era up to the present time, from every nook and cranny of the archipelago, a great number of Filipino electorate have remained poor, destitute, and lacking in even the most basic necessities in life. So, I ask again, what is the use of elections and proclamations?

Many will say, this is the fault of no one else but the voters themselves. They allow themselves to be bought, to be manipulated, to be cheated. They do not vote the really deserving, they do not concern themselves with the abuses and the crimes of those who have been voted before, so they have no reason to complain. If the system is loaded against them, it is because they have allowed the system to be loaded against them.

Well, this is one way of seeing things. On the other hand, it is also said that this is the fault of our greedy and insatiable politicians and political leaders. They have no concern for the welfare of their constituents.

Their only desire is to be elected, so they could use the power of their office to further enhance their personal, family, and business interests. So they buy votes, they cheat, and they manipulate.

The question is, where are all of these things headed for? Will the poor continue to allow themselves to remain the object of manipulation and electoral cheating and fraud? Will the rich and the powerful remain greedy and hungry for power and the perks and privileges that go with a government position?

It would seem that the answer to these questions are quite obvious. As things stand, the poor will continue to be abused and used merely as pawns by the rich and the powerful, while the rich will remain insatiable in their greed. Nothing is going to change, considering the tendency of many destitute Filipinos to simply accept the fate that has befallen them.

But then this should not be for long. No matter how inconsequential this may appear to many, there are now well-defined groups in this country who believe that change will not come from the politicians, the rich and the mighty, and certainly not from the poor, but rather, will come from God, in His great mercy and love for those who believe Him and have faith in Him.

The preliminary proceeding at the Supreme Court on Tuesday where Justices Francis Jardeleza, Samuel Martirez, and Noel Tijam propounded the first batch of questions to former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay in connection with the petition of Sen. Leila de Lima for the dismissal of the illegal drugs cases against her seem to indicate that de Lima will not get their favorable votes.

Jardeleza for one directly expressed his misgivings about the inability of Hilbay’s arguments and submissions and the allegations in the petition that the other lawyers of de Lima submitted to the Supreme Court to overcome relevant provisions of the Rules of Court mandating that the issues she raised to the high tribunal should be returned to the Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court for resolution.

Hilbay was told by Jardeleza in no uncertain terms to study further and more thoroughly the concept of constitutional due process pertaining to criminal cases if he wanted the majority of the Supreme Court to support his submission that the trial judge–Juanita Ferry Guerrero–had the obligation to rule first on de Lima’s motion to dismiss the cases against her for lack of jurisdiction before the order to arrest the senator.

Martirez on the other hand pounded on the absence of any direct rule in the Rules on Criminal Procedure which would require a trial judge like Guerrero in a case like that of de Lima to rule first on a motion to quash based on an alleged lack of jurisdiction of that judge before any further action is taken on the case.

Declaring that he was a judge of a Regional Trial Court for five years before he got assigned to the Sandiganbayan and then ultimately to the Supreme Court at present, Martirez pointed out that the rules on how a criminal case is to proceed to trial are arranged in a manner that acknowledges the fact that when criminal cases are filed before the courts, the probable cause is already deemed established right away on the basis of the prosecutor’s findings.

On the other hand, Tijam–himself a Regional Trial Court judge–zeroed in on the apparent lack of trust on the part of de Lima and her lawyers in the capacity of Judge Guerrero to resolve the cases before her with integrity and impartiality so that they immediately sought refuge from the highest court of the land.

All seemed not lost yet for Hilbay and his client, de Lima, however. The discourse of Justice Jardeleza while he was propounding his questions to the former solicitor general who, by the way, was Jardeleza’s understudy and fair-haired boy while they were still at the Office of the Solicitor General, afforded some ray of hope.

But, as Jardeleza repeatedly stated, Hilbay had to come up with a very good memorandum explaining why the ordinary rules on criminal proceedings would have to give way to the constitutional guarantee of due process. Jardeleza managed to point out that under the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution, a person could not be accused of a crime if his right to due process was not observed.

Jardeleza’s point, using decisions of the US Supreme Court ,was that, even if there is no specific rule that requires a judge to refrain from issuing a warrant of arrest against an accused if that accused had filed a motion to quash or dismiss the charges against him or her, the due process clause of the Constitution is deemed to include such rights as are normally observed and practiced in a society that professes adherence to the rule of law and fair play.

E-mail: batasmauricio@yahoo.com

Disclaimer

Mindanao Gold Star Daily holds the copyrights of all articles and photos in perpetuity. Any unauthorized reproduction in any platform, electronic and hardcopy, shall be liable for copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Rights Law of the Philippines.

- Advertisement -