Of judges and Harry Roque

Herbie Gomez .

THE public saw something very unusual last week: court officials, judges and empoyees under them openly calling for the resignation of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno during the regular Monday morning gathering at the SC grounds ahead of her looming trial in an impeachment court. But what we didn’t see coming was the response of court workers and other judges across the country who found a place in social media to vent and subsequently, publicly state their position.

The so-called “Red Monday” backfired because it turned out that resignation is not necessarily the position of all the people in the judiciary, and there is much room to doubt that such official stand reflects their collective sentiments and thoughts. It looks like officials of at least five organizations took it upon themselves to go public with a position on behalf of their members without even bothering to ask them if that was what they wanted or not.

Court people, especially judges, are known to always hold back in public. For judges, the courtroom is the place where they make a stand or give their opinion but only after all pieces of evidence are in place. That is part of their training, and that is a very difficult discipline.

But last week, they made an exception because they felt that politics was already encroaching on judicial independence.

A group of judges here put it in a March 14, 2018 joint statement: “We do not have the luxury of publicly expressing our sentiments, unless prompted by the situation. But we are living in uncertain times, and today, we make an exception.”

“Uncertain times.” That’s loaded.

It was a spontaneous response. The judges went to Facebook which was the easiest and fastest way to make known their stand. They had no time to meet and so, I was told, they just exchanged messages using their smartphones and other gadgets in between work.

To them, there was nothing unusual about what they did except that “Red Monday” prompted them to make a public statement to disavow the Sereno resignation call because, come to think of it, it was made to look that it was their stand when truth is, there was really no consensus.

I see judges, forced into this situation, acting on their convictions and principles, and sending a very strong message. Their message is crystal clear: they cannot, should not, and will not take sides outside the processes provided for in the Constitution.

What a relief for ordinary mortals like us to be given the assurance that the judiciary is still OK, that there are still many strong judges out there who won’t be politicized and would hold the line, and even push back, when the situation calls for it.

And so, everyone clap for the following judges:

• Florencia Sealana Abbu, RTC 17, Cagayan de Oro City
• Vincent Filomeno Rosales, RTC 23, Cagayan de Oro City
• Henry B. Damasing, RTC 24, Cagayan de Oro City
• Jose L. Escobido, RTC 37, Cagayan de Oro City
• Emmanuel Pastores Pasal, RTC 38, Cagayan de Oro City
• Marites Filomena Rana-Bernales, RTC 39, Cagayan de Oro City
• Ma. Corazon B. Gaite-Llanderal, RTC 40, Cagayan de Oro City
• Marissa P. Estabaya, RTC 44, Initao, Misamis Oriental
• Judy Sia-Galvez, RTC 42, Medina, Misamis Oriental
• Isobel G. Barroso, RTC 8, Malaybalay City
• Ma. Theresa A. Camannong, RTC 9, Malaybalay City
• Eldred D. Cole, RTC 45, Malaybalay City
• Wilfredo G. Bilbera, Jr., RTC 46, Malaybalay City
• Nannette Michote E. Lao, RTC 28, Camiguin
• Jeanne Marie A. Sabio, RTC 11, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon

That’s just the Region 10 list. I’m sure there are many more here and elsewhere in the country. With judges like them, we can still sleep soundly in our beds with the thought that the judiciary, as an institution, won’t be (pardon me for the word) screwed that easily.

***

Harry Roque, the presidential spokesman, said the Philippines’ withdrawal from the Rome Statute is “the beginning of the end” of the International Criminal Court because, he opines, it would set off an avalanche of withdrawals by other countries.

Why would anyone want to get rid of the ICC when it is there to end impunity and make those behind unspeakable crimes against humanity answerable? Why would Roque gloat and wish that?

I am beginning to suspect that the presidential spokesman is not the real Harry Roque and that the man we see on live TV everyday is either an impostor or some form of robot with artificial intelligence that’s been made to look, smell and sound like a man. And so it makes me wonder where they hid the body of the real Harry Roque.

My basis for my robotics theory is the 2011 blog of the “real” Harry Roque entitled, “ICC: At long last,” where he hailed the Senate’s concurrence to the Rome Statute after 11 years of lobby work by him and his group.

Incidentally, here’s one of the provisions of the Rome Statute: “A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Statute while it was a Party to the Statute… Its withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.”

The Harry Roque of 2011 correctly put it in his blog: “… the task(s) ahead are still challenging, if not daunting.” Well, as we can see, President Duterte is one of ICC’s daunting tasks and challenges now.

And then he adds in the same 2011 blog: “To be candid, I never thought that membership in the ICC was possible, at least before I become geriatric. This is because of the many atrocities under both the Marcos and Arroyo regimes that remain unpunished. Well, it’s always a pleasure to be proven wrong. Here, credit should go to both the Senate and to President Benigno Aquino III. It was the latter who reversed the Arroyo policy of rejecting the ICC as a means of ending impunity. On behalf of all victims of impunity, I express my gratitude to both the Senate and PNoy for finally granting the Filipino people an effective remedy to impunity.”

Now, I dare this approximately 190-pound piece of Malacañang robotic device with an advanced form of artificial intelligence to prove to us, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is who it claims to be. And it needs to demonstrate to us why it thinks now that the ICC is not “an effective remedy to impunity.”

If it can prove my robotics theory wrong, and if it is indeed the same Harry Roque who authored the 2011 blog, then I challenge him to a public debate — with himself, of course — and show to us that he has not, borrowing his own words, become geriatric.

The ICC is there to provide safeguards against tyranny. What Malacañang did was aimed at protecting only one man against the interests of an entire nation and its future. It wants to make the present President immune from being held accountable before the international community and makes the country susceptible to tyranny, present and future. So what happens if, by chance, a second Idi Amin-like mayor is elected president of this country again long after Duterte is gone? For crissakes, think. Pastilan.