04/04/2011
What is a country that has an elected senator of the land who absconds and flees from the law, evades a warrant of arrest issued by the courts, abandons duties to which he was sworn into office, and apparently exits and re-enters the country without passing through the requisite legal procedures, all while waiting for a more friendly dispensation to pave the way for the dismissal of his case?
Then, what kind of a public official is one who, upon re-emerging, keeps mum on his disappearance and evasion of the international police dragnet, as well as the detailed methods, avenues, and persons that abetted his escape from the long arm of the law? The country is, after all, entitled to know just how certain high profile fugitives are aided in such a spectacular manner. But no; just as there is zero cooperation from this official, his fellow senators even accept and defend his “right against self-incrimination.”
On this supposedly constitutional expert senator’s legal opinion, law professor and constitutionalist Alan Paguia proffers a contrary view. First of all, he says Ping Lacson is not an ordinary person. As a public official, Lacson has special duties and responsibilities to the public; and wherever public interest and welfare is involved, these duties are paramount. Moreover, a public official does not have the luxury of invoking what Sen. Miriam Santiago claims for this senator as a right. I tend to agree.
It really sounds self-serving when senators defend their fellow members’ dissolute acts. Fortunately, such actions are eliciting scorn from the public. Take for example this blog entry by third2eyeblind: “With money and power you can hide from the law, surface only when the heat blows over. It was just like that, nothing happened. Comedians, really, all these government people.”
Comedians, yes, but funny they aren’t. When they help in covering up for persons or forces that challenge the majesty of the law, laws that all the rest of us have to fear and obey but which they flaunt, they pose a menace to the whole of society.
Worse, those who help such fugitives beat even transnational laws, wield powers that are over and above, as well as beneath the radar of, the formal state. These powers come with an extensive web of assets and operators in and around the unlighted corridors of both national and transnational bureaucracies. As such, this is no ordinary travel agency.
Who has such powerful transnational influence and networks if not the intelligence services or Hades of the underworld, from Her Majesty’s secret service, Mossad, the CIA, or China’s Guojia Anquan Bu, to the international drugs, human trafficking, or smuggling mafias and syndicates?
The situation reminds me of a story that fascinated me in my youth, the tale of The Devil and Daniel Webster. It tells of Mr. Stone, an American farmer beleaguered by hard times, who sold his soul to the Prince of Darkness for better prospects. When, seven years later as agreed, the Devil came to collect on the farmer’s debt, the latter balked on giving his soul and sought out American statesman Daniel Webster to accept his case. Webster acceded then argued, “Mr. Stone is an American citizen, and no American citizen may be forced into the service of a foreign prince,” demanding a trial as is the right of every American. By his eloquence, Webster successfully extricated the farmer from his dilemma. While we can’t really know if Lacson did indeed make a deal with the Devil in exchange for shelter and refuge, the fact that he now wouldn’t divulge any details leads people to suspect that he must have.
As the court Lacson faces is the court of the people, Miriam Santiago can’t be his Daniel Webster. Furthermore, Lacson’s silence, like his flight from the law, is another admission of guilt — a guilt that he tries to cover up with innuendoes that he never backs up.
With dark clouds of suspicion hanging over him, how can Lacson function as a member of the highest lawmaking body of the land? Similarly, how can the people repose their trust in a legislature that harbors such shifty and dubious character (this, especially after legislators barefacedly deny them any truth and transparency)?
Why, the question should also be addressed to an even higher office, the Office of the President: Why receive Lacson without first demanding the whole truth, which is nothing but his primary obligation to the nation?
It is clear that under the present dispensation, the mantra of “This is not a priority” applies to everything that the people hold with utmost importance — truth and justice. Even the truth in the last elections, upon which the present government stands, has not been fully established as 12 percent of the “Hocus PCOS” machines have actually not been read or all the mandated manual auditing completed. The truth in the Luneta hostage massacre is also being waylaid today as this government portrays the Deputy Ombudsman as the most guilty just so that it can cover up for one of its own — the darling city mayor of the Yellow family.
What is a country with leaders that do not adhere to the rule of law and dishonor the people’s aspirations for truth and justice? No doubt, a lawless country! If the Philippines were to be saved, this lawlessness should not prevail even a moment longer.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; TNT with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “Dacer Family’s struggle for justice” with Cezar Mancao and Attys. Ferdinand Topacio and Demetrio Custodio; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus select radio and GNN shows)
(Reprinted with permission from Mr. Herman Tiu-Laurel)
Source: The Daily Tribune
URL:
http://www.tribuneonline.org/commentary/20110404com5.html
