Enrile’s point
| C.R.O.S.S.R.O.A.D.S |
 |
| Jonathan De la Cruz |
So, OK. We can understand P-Noy’s rage over the Sandiganbayan Second Division’s decision to uphold the plea bargain agreement between the Office of the Ombudsman and retired Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia. The Chief Executive fumed that the justices must be “living in a vacuum” and that the ruling itself was “unacceptable” and “legally wrong.” Certainly, there was a flaw somewhere, so this decision has earned such public outcry. But shouldn’t P-Noy and his legal advisers from Presidential Legal Counsel Ed de Mesa to Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and Solicitor General Joel Cadiz, to name just three of the legal minds who are supposed to provide him legal counsel, take pause and reflect on what really happened here. This development did not happen simply because the justices “could not get it.” No, Sir. Precisely, they had to render that decision on the basis of the records of the case and the hearings conducted over time. They are not supposed to decide on the basis of “public opinion” or the “say so” of other people no matter how powerful and influential they may be. They have to decide “in a vacuum” unperturbed by the passions of the moment or the “public pulse.” No less than Justice Baldos, the ponente, advised that the critics should simply read the decision instead of arguing in ad hominems. She then observed that as justices they are trained to set their eyes only on the facts and records of the case and the transcripts of the hearings unswayed by the cries or even hallelujahs of the crowd..... MORE
Source: The Daily Tribune
URL: http://www.tribuneonline.org/commentary/20110516com4.html
0 comments
Post a Comment