The Constitution mandates it

Statement .

(Official Statement of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Misamis Oriental Chapter in the matter of People of the Philippines vs. Johaira “Marimar” A. Macaubat)

THE varying reactions to the judgment in People of the Philippines vs. Johaira “Marimar” A. Macaubat, across many of our institutions and media platforms over just a week ago, affirm the dissonant interests that tersely divide our nation. Dubbed no less as the “Mindanao Drug Queen”, Marimar’s acquittal roused the most polarizing of political persuasions.

We stand by the said Judgment, penned by Hon. Jeoffre W. Acebido – who is no less a recipient of the Chief Justice Cayetano L. Arellano Award for Outstanding Regional Trial Court Judge. We do so, notwithstanding the vitriol spewed to hold the courts hostage to the notoriety of public opinion. We do so, especially in defiance to the absurdity of being persecuted for upholding one’s sworn duty to office.

The judgment is borne of cautious and methodic legal reasoning. It cites not only its constitutional bases, but as well as the procedures which – if observed – would have elicited the conviction that the “People of the Philippines” sought. While some have successfully brandished the non-observance of these procedural safeguards to a mere “technicality”, they could never do away with the fact that no less than the Constitution mandates it. And it is mandated not to protect the guilty from conviction, but to ensure against the indictment of the innocent.

This narrative is repeated elsewhere, whispered in the culmination of lives lost to merciless killings. We grieve with those who are unnamed in our condolences, but we now refuse to just grieve. And quite certainly, our grief cannot be muted by any power that is exercised with such obvious caprice as to be malicious.

Some decry the risks that Judge Acebido now faces – he among countless others – after the spate of murders committed against other judges that are known for disfavoring arbitrary warrantless arrests, searches, and seizures or even of lawyers, who have sworn never to deny a litigant their due representation in court. Others laud his courage, but offer no consolation that would silence the fear that grapples the Bench and Bar as they tread cases that involve the participation of our law enforcement agencies. With the recent ambush of a team of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency operatives somewhere in Lanao del Sur, it would seem that even our law enforcers are not barred from sharing our fear.

This fear has become so pervasive that it can neither be trivialized nor dismissed as negligible. Especially, in the face of a public discourse that is so easily influenced by the pomp of a bullish audience and under the threat of being condemned for some perceived contradiction to the prevailing propaganda. The favor of the public, while necessary to initiate action on the part of government, cannot subvert the rule of law or serve as its substitute.

Judicial proceedings ensure that the law, in its fruition, is a serving of justice – it cannot be questioned without a consideration of the actions by those who are called upon to enforce it. Fidelity to the law, after all, is not reserved for the exclusive observance of our magistrates.

We cannot subscribe to a piecemeal valuation of what government can or cannot do, with respect only to the judiciary. Our laws have been approximated not so much as an attempt to guarantee the enjoyment of the right to liberty but to guard against its arbitrary forfeiture – and this is the onus not only of the Judiciary, but also of the Executive and the Legislative Departments.

And for so long as we do not subscribe to the government as a system that operates on all three, the freedoms that are assured to us as a democracy will falter. If we must again risk taking our last breaths, it is unfortunate that we must now accept it as a currency for the continuance of the rule of law. –Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Misamis Oriental Chapter