By Ciriaco Guingguing
Sunday Post Publisher
Justice can be both er bought?
To this Bglante, dispensing justice and engaging in making news stories have one thing in common. They can be both.
Both here as in justice means it can be bought or in most cases it is decided on its merits. As for newsmen, the men behind the news can be both either in cold cash or in cold blood. Although there is an exemption to the rule. For God's sake there are still newsmen who are true to their calling. They practiced the profession with utmost honesty. But in this dog-eat-dog media environment, looking for an honest media man is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Now back to justice as a traded commodity in the auction block. After all, this thesis is more on the justice side rather than on the commercial aspect of news stories.
If justice is reduced to something like a commercial product, then any discussion at this time of its ugly side is quite timely. Remember how the Court of Appeals is now the object of charges and counter charges involving a questioned decision of its 9th division. According to news reports, charges of bribery characterized the favorable ruling in the case of Meralco vs GSIS.
We don't have to delve into the nitty gritty of how justice was being prostituted in this high profile case but suffice it to say that there was a whistle blower who exposed that money changes hands ranging from P50 million to P10 million.
Nobody can tell how this scandalous episode will turn out. But one thing is certain, the CA as an institution is badly tarnished and it will take a long, long time before its image will be back to what it was before.
Even the Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, is not immune from charges of wrongdoing. Remember the accusations of topnotch lawyer Victor de la Serna that one of the justices handling a case he was representing was a recipient of a P10million land case in Panglao. The case is still pending resolution by the SC division handling the case while de la Serna was slapped with a direct contempt charge.
Are the lower courts (RTC, MCTC, MTC) any better than their higher counterparts. The famous saying among lawyers is the name of the game. It differentiates the good lawyer and a great lawyer. For the uninitiated, it means a good lawyer knows his law while a great lawyer knows the judge.
There you are. It is common knowledge among lawyers in lower courts that there are cases decided not on the basis of their merits. These cases were won on the strength of the judge whose decision was bought by sums of money either by the litigant or through his lawyer.
Of course, this can be viewed as too sweeping a statement. Because we still believe that there are still judges out there who are as a honest although finding them is like Deogenes looking for one in a broad daylight.
The prosecuting fiscals? They are as guilty as hell when they allowed their resolution to be influenced by the color of money. Although we are not pointing an accusing finger to any of the three prosecutors clearing former mayor Doloreich Dumaluan of Panglao and two others that their resolution was the product of questionable circumstances, it was enough that the counsel of the complainants posed a loaded question on the contention that one of the key witness was coached and paid. The broad hint which the lady counsel certainly dedicates to the three prosecutors who agreed among themselves that they found no probable cause to indict Dumaluan et. al for homicide speaks of volumes.
On the contention that the key witness was coached and paid, the counsel for the complainant retorted what can prevent the private complainants who are simple farmers who can hardly afford to make both ends meet, to be convinced that the majority of the prosecutors were coached and paid.
Earlier, the same counsel for the defendant hinted in her motion for reconsideration in the Dumaluan case of a "P2 million floating in the air", whatever that means.
Sunday Post Publisher
Justice can be both er bought?
To this Bglante, dispensing justice and engaging in making news stories have one thing in common. They can be both.
Both here as in justice means it can be bought or in most cases it is decided on its merits. As for newsmen, the men behind the news can be both either in cold cash or in cold blood. Although there is an exemption to the rule. For God's sake there are still newsmen who are true to their calling. They practiced the profession with utmost honesty. But in this dog-eat-dog media environment, looking for an honest media man is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Now back to justice as a traded commodity in the auction block. After all, this thesis is more on the justice side rather than on the commercial aspect of news stories.
If justice is reduced to something like a commercial product, then any discussion at this time of its ugly side is quite timely. Remember how the Court of Appeals is now the object of charges and counter charges involving a questioned decision of its 9th division. According to news reports, charges of bribery characterized the favorable ruling in the case of Meralco vs GSIS.
We don't have to delve into the nitty gritty of how justice was being prostituted in this high profile case but suffice it to say that there was a whistle blower who exposed that money changes hands ranging from P50 million to P10 million.
Nobody can tell how this scandalous episode will turn out. But one thing is certain, the CA as an institution is badly tarnished and it will take a long, long time before its image will be back to what it was before.
Even the Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, is not immune from charges of wrongdoing. Remember the accusations of topnotch lawyer Victor de la Serna that one of the justices handling a case he was representing was a recipient of a P10million land case in Panglao. The case is still pending resolution by the SC division handling the case while de la Serna was slapped with a direct contempt charge.
Are the lower courts (RTC, MCTC, MTC) any better than their higher counterparts. The famous saying among lawyers is the name of the game. It differentiates the good lawyer and a great lawyer. For the uninitiated, it means a good lawyer knows his law while a great lawyer knows the judge.
There you are. It is common knowledge among lawyers in lower courts that there are cases decided not on the basis of their merits. These cases were won on the strength of the judge whose decision was bought by sums of money either by the litigant or through his lawyer.
Of course, this can be viewed as too sweeping a statement. Because we still believe that there are still judges out there who are as a honest although finding them is like Deogenes looking for one in a broad daylight.
The prosecuting fiscals? They are as guilty as hell when they allowed their resolution to be influenced by the color of money. Although we are not pointing an accusing finger to any of the three prosecutors clearing former mayor Doloreich Dumaluan of Panglao and two others that their resolution was the product of questionable circumstances, it was enough that the counsel of the complainants posed a loaded question on the contention that one of the key witness was coached and paid. The broad hint which the lady counsel certainly dedicates to the three prosecutors who agreed among themselves that they found no probable cause to indict Dumaluan et. al for homicide speaks of volumes.
On the contention that the key witness was coached and paid, the counsel for the complainant retorted what can prevent the private complainants who are simple farmers who can hardly afford to make both ends meet, to be convinced that the majority of the prosecutors were coached and paid.
Earlier, the same counsel for the defendant hinted in her motion for reconsideration in the Dumaluan case of a "P2 million floating in the air", whatever that means.
