Please bear with me as I grope through the issues that threaten to shake the very foundation of our so called democracy. I said so called because ours has never been a government of the people, by the people and for the people. But then this is another story, isn't it?
Why must the Supreme Court deal with very specific questions? Does this mean that henceforth, any Palace henchman may seek prior clearance from the SC on any question he doesn't want the Senate to ask? Wouldn't it make the Senate less equal with the SC?
It just doesn't seem right that anybody would give prior restraint to a body whose members are, presumably, chosen by the people themselves from among so many brilliant aspirants. Can't we grant them just enough common sense, plain decency and cursory knowledge of statutory and political limitations so they can enjoy some degree of freedom in the performance of their jobs and even, perhaps, at one point or another in just sheer grandstanding or unwitting exposure of mental handicaps?
It just doesn't seem right that anybody would give prior restraint to a body whose members are, presumably, chosen by the people themselves from among so many brilliant aspirants. Can't we grant them just enough common sense, plain decency and cursory knowledge of statutory and political limitations so they can enjoy some degree of freedom in the performance of their jobs and even, perhaps, at one point or another in just sheer grandstanding or unwitting exposure of mental handicaps?
Now, what's all this fuss about the first two questions? How could anyone, PGMA especially, be bothered by it at all? What if Neri says no to both questions? Maybe we might even chide PGMA for being a bit remiss with her job! The President's men and some supposedly heavy weight technical people sang paeans about the project so it was just a matter of logical concern that the President should follow-up on it and even order that it be given priority. What's wrong with it?
The 3rd question might to a different league. It could indeed be damaging. But wait… wasn't this question already answered in the Senate inquiry? Will anyone please refresh my memory? Didn't Neri already admit telling PGMA about Abalos' bribe offer? In effect, didn't he say that PGMA told him to approve the project anyway? He said so by being silent despite intense pressure.
The truth is already out. The Senate does not need to do anything to implicate PGMA in the anomaly. In effect, Neri did it, by his resounding silence; the President's men, by sending Jun Lozada abroad to evade the Senate inquiry and by kidnapping him; Chairman Abalos, by being omnipresent in the ZTE transactions even at the height of the 2007 election frenzy; Executive Undersecretary Manuel Gaite, by being so generous to a tune of P500,000 to a nonentity at such a short notice.
Maybe we should include in this list the lucky nine justices of the SC by... well, by being lucky. On top of the list should be PGMA herself, by firing Neri for being loquacious in his silence and by giving him something to chew at CHED so he can't really talk; for not canceling the contract immediately and for admitting that she knew that the contract is flawed even before she signed it. Jun Lozada does not belong. The color of his feather differs.
Why do the Senate insist in asking Neri these three redundant or inane questions? Is it its job to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt or innocence of a person. Isn't it enough that it has unearthed enough information for Plaza Miranda to make an intelligent conclusion? A taxi driver told me that in this our democracy nobody can force anybody to talk against his will. Legally, of course. He also said that judges are allowed to consider non-verbal messages of witnesses such as hesitancy, blinking of an eye or restlessness. Why can't we do the same?
We raged for the truth. Now we rage for action. Unfortunately, CBCP cannot lead us. It is too busy searching for the truth that, in the process, it conceals. And the Senate is also busy allowing the heat generated to cool off, or the rage to shift direction. It is playing with the Supreme Court a game called 3D - dumb, deaf and dolt. With all due respect...
The truth is already out. The Senate does not need to do anything to implicate PGMA in the anomaly. In effect, Neri did it, by his resounding silence; the President's men, by sending Jun Lozada abroad to evade the Senate inquiry and by kidnapping him; Chairman Abalos, by being omnipresent in the ZTE transactions even at the height of the 2007 election frenzy; Executive Undersecretary Manuel Gaite, by being so generous to a tune of P500,000 to a nonentity at such a short notice.
Maybe we should include in this list the lucky nine justices of the SC by... well, by being lucky. On top of the list should be PGMA herself, by firing Neri for being loquacious in his silence and by giving him something to chew at CHED so he can't really talk; for not canceling the contract immediately and for admitting that she knew that the contract is flawed even before she signed it. Jun Lozada does not belong. The color of his feather differs.
Why do the Senate insist in asking Neri these three redundant or inane questions? Is it its job to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt or innocence of a person. Isn't it enough that it has unearthed enough information for Plaza Miranda to make an intelligent conclusion? A taxi driver told me that in this our democracy nobody can force anybody to talk against his will. Legally, of course. He also said that judges are allowed to consider non-verbal messages of witnesses such as hesitancy, blinking of an eye or restlessness. Why can't we do the same?
We raged for the truth. Now we rage for action. Unfortunately, CBCP cannot lead us. It is too busy searching for the truth that, in the process, it conceals. And the Senate is also busy allowing the heat generated to cool off, or the rage to shift direction. It is playing with the Supreme Court a game called 3D - dumb, deaf and dolt. With all due respect...
No comments:
Post a Comment