Euro cash scandal revisited
If things can proceed along universal legal norms, it has become clear that most of the acts, statements, even whims perhaps openly expressed by Lady Miriam over the euro cop scandal in Moscow amount to (un)thinking out of the box. Where more mature viewpoints indicate, that of the good Senator ought to be somewhat wild or out of touch with reality. In other words, even if her intentions were good enough, such attempt to investigate a suspiciously laundering activity will not hit the ground running. And where this happens, every word said against Eliseo dela Paz or every action against him becomes an entire exercise in futility. Remember that incident where she ordered guests at the Senate to be arrested, humiliated, in-dignified (as though some lower life forms, in her popular punch) on mere suspicion that she was booed by them? Hamurabi, if he were alive today, ought to be revolting.
Certainly, the Senate cannot be transformed into an accuser, judge, executioner – all in one and the same respect. From the outline, this seems to be what Senator Miriam tends to metamorphosed into that one finds comfort in the thought she did not become president or anyone who would dare expressed another view will earn her wrath, contempt, or contumacious ire. Or is it not the case that she is trying to tell us that ‘unless kings senators, and senators kings, there cannot be an ideal government’? This kind of mindset can have its excesses and if this tends to become a dangerous legal precedent, it can send ‘shark-attacks-effect’ on our political beach, pray not. At the very least, the Machiavellian tradition of ‘end justifies the means’ is a thing of the past and this is probably the reason why, citing anyone for contempt by skipping all the normal procedures or ordering anybody’s arrest by skipping everything that due process provides ought to be tantamount to contempt itself. But there is no such thing as contempt upon oneself, is there?
Observers derive lessons from these forms of un-governing legal intramurals. It tells us that there are procedures yet to be satisfied and followed before a contempt charge can be cited against anyone. Likewise, there are requirements that ought to be complied with before an arrest order can be issued to the peril of anyone who is subject of such writ or warrant. True enough, the whole concept of social justice grinds exceedingly slow but when it does, it makes smooth all otherwise rough edges in legalese. In the unseen process, poor PNP officer has been unduly exposed to that crippling effect of trial by publicity when not a moment much less a day has been afforded him in open court to speak his piece. As things resulted, in effect, we have placed the cart before the horse. As early as anything very positive is proven, the offenses committed and their penalties have already been advanced.
If such given incident did not as much as create a ripple in Moscow, why did it create a tidal wave here in the Philippines? When Moscow authorities have already cleared the PNP officer involved as beyond any possible legal sanction, why should he be made culpable of every kind of possible crime in his country of origin? Had we rather embrace an unpatronizing attitude in his behalf since Dela Paz came to the 77th Interpol General Assembly as our own representative to this global conference? Instead of initiating a very elemental note of diplomatic apology to the host country by our official government agency concerned such as the Department of Foreign Affairs in behalf of Dela Paz, why do we want to place his head on the chopping board before a viewing universe?
And as if posting an alert at the Bureau of Immigration to preclude Dela Paz’ possible flight off-country, lady Miriam ordered the bureau to put him in the hold-order list. The arresting team of the Senate literally combed the whole Camp Crame complex to get Dela Paz but failed to even find him. Why this wild goose chase when his lawyer has always expressed his willingness to cause the appearance of his client, if at least legally permissible and necessary? It seems that there is no stopping the Senate in whatever it undertakes to do – this despite a petition has yet to be acted upon by the High Court which in fact asked the Senate to submit its comments within 10 days. Come to think of it, the Dela Paz camp has raised a lot of legal questions that have yet to be confronted with answers – telling us that the democratic framework simply allows for both parties to the controversy to disagree especially where new practice or procedure is undertaken without any existing legal precedent.
The video footage of the English Parliament where we see members of Parlliament in a kind of wild brawl ought to be instructive. In other words, guests at the Senate should not be treated like they can just be slapped with contempt or otherwise detained within its premises – absent the requirements of due process and legal processes at work. Whoever the Senate invites may or may not accept the invitation which means plainly that normally anybody can also either accept or reject it. One who fails to make self available or be present does not have to be automatically cited in contempt nor should an automatic warrant of arrest be issued at the unilateral judgment of a single member of Senate. In short, certain rules of procedure ought to be observed with the same degree of reverence as in ordinary times.
If the just-held Joc Joc Senate inquiry were any gauge, from where I stand, there is sufficient reason to believe that again, inquiring into this euro cash scandal will not yield any positive results than mere highly theory-laden suspicion. It is so disappointing to see how Joc Joc Bolante was being investigated that it is even possible, no one gets anything from his appearance at the Senate than what have already been known and discovered independently of any testimony from the person himself – just nothing new. And this show can just go on and on indefinitely until everyone else experiences mental fatigue and the show must come to an end. What “in aid of legislation” are we talking about here? We are always carried by the current of the political waters than wanting to cross the other end of the river – this demented bureaucratic procedure has been overstretched with nothing really accomplished. Who did any of congressional inquiries we know of jailed who, pray tell? Who, if any, were truly made culpably accountable for any grave offense, please tell?
Forgive me, but watching the whole televised proceedings live and unedited opens a lot of room for laughter. No wonder one calls it entertainment as much as showbiz does. I fondly recall Jinggoy asking if ‘attorney so and so’ is a lawyer except if that were a rhetorical question altogether. And then in questioning whether Joc Joc would prioritize his business commitments over that of national interest, it is unfortunate that Joc Joc has not made justice to the very interesting point raised by Jinggoy who then have to say Joc Joc has chosen one over another that is equally important. But which is which? In fairness, Jinggoy asked the more proper background questions that can lay the predicate at the latter part of the investigation, or so I thought. All told, the kids’ gloves treatment afforded Joc Joc only made a mockery of truth, justice, and morals.