|
|
Ilang pogi points ba ito?
Nakakulong ka na Erap, nahihibang ka pa rin. Palibhasa, desperado ka na at namamalimos pa ng awa. Sabi mo nilabag ang iyong karapatan . . . alin? kailan? saan? Pinagbigyan ka ng ilang beses ng Korte Suprema na mapakinggan ngunit kahit saang batas, Diyos man o tao, eh talagang nilabag mo. Ihinto na ang pagsisinungaling at paglilinlang ng masa. Kung nais mo ba naman ang kabutihan ng sambayanan, itigil mo ang paghakot ng tao para lang kaawaan at ipaglaban ka. Nakakahiya na an asal mo, duwag ka pa rin sa aabutin mong hatol. Huwg kang mag-alala, kasama mo naman si Jinggoy. At sasamahan ka pa nila Marcos, Atong Ang, Lucio Tan, at lahat ng mga kaibigan mong salot sa lipunan. Katarungan lang, walang personalan!
Comfy?
What rights?
JOSEPH Estrada, the first Filipino president to be jailed for plunder, is crying foul. "I was not given the chance to present my side before the Filipino people," he protested after his arrest Wednesday. "I strongly condemn this systematic violation of my human rights as enshrined in the Constitution."
It is a complaint his sympathizers now chant like a mantra, just as they automatically repeat Estrada's obviously deceptive campaign line, "Erap para sa mahirap." The unthinking throngs which have picked up this argument can be forgiven their blind belief in their fallen idol. But how can anyone who has studied law like Sen. Miriam Santiago or former Press Secretary Ricardo Puno Jr. say this with a straight face? Santiago has been quoted as saying, "Our judicial system is biased against the accused." Puno said Estrada's arrest was "a travesty of justice." "Constitutional rights are no longer sacrosanct in this country," Puno bewailed.
It would certainly be very helpful to everyone if Estrada, Santiago and Puno could be more specific.
Their followers could then have something heavier than stones to throw at the Macapagal administration.
The administration, on the other hand, would know what to correct if anything really needs correcting.
Those vague statements leave many people wondering exactly what constitutional rights of Estrada have been violated.
Was it his right to be informed of his charges? The Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman have not been shy about telling everyone about the cases they have filed against Estrada, among them, illegal use of alias, graft and corruption, perjury and plunder.
Was it his right to counsel? Estrada is still being represented by the same battery of lawyers that defended him during the impeachment trial in the Senate led by retired Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, although minus Estelito Mendoza but plus former Sen. Rene Saguisag, the lawyer who is serving the billionaire former president gratis et amore.
Was there a rush to judgment? Estrada's lawyers have gone to the Supreme Court to prevent Estrada from being charged criminally, claiming he was still the president and therefore he ought to be immune from prosecution. The Court ruled not just once but twice and by a unanimous vote of 13 justices that Estrada was no longer president. Meanwhile the prosecutors were stopped from filing the cases against him although they said they had already gathered more than enough evidence to send him to jail on several charges.
Was it his right to be given temporary liberty? Estrada and his co-accused exercised that right when they posted bail for the less serious offenses like graft, perjury and violation of the code of ethics for public officials. Every two-bit lawyer, however, knows that someone who is accused of a heinous crime like murder or plunder cannot be allowed to post bail, unless the evidence against him is weak. Government prosecutors are saying they have a strong case against Estrada. The Sandiganbayan has yet to determine whether that claim is true. In the meantime, the law says Estrada has to be put behind bars.
What Estrada and his political allies are really saying is that the disgraced leader ought to remain free while the charges against him are being heard or at the very least he should be held under house arrest. The Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law.
Why should Estrada be exempt from the equal application of the law? Is it because he is a former president? But the fact that he was the country's highest officials when he violated the laws only makes his transgressions worse, not lighter. Why then should he be accorded certain privileges that are not given to others who are accused of serious offenses?
Estrada said he was ready to "face and answer the charges of those who are persecuting me." That is a reiteration of the pledge he made long before the impeachment trial began. He never got around to doing it, with his lawyers refusing to let him testify before the Senate.
Now he is again saying he wants to explain his side to the people. It is hard to imagine a better forum to present his case to the people than the hearings before the Sandiganbayan. Why doesn't he seize the opportunity by directing his lawyers to drop all the legal maneuvers they have been making to delay the trial? Better still, why doesn't he join those who have asked the court to allow live television coverage of his trial?
Featured TRAPO of the month:
Miriam "Brenda" Defensor-Santiago
Joseph "Erap" Ejercito Estrada
~ Pisara ng Balitaktakan ~
News Update on TRAPOs *
Anomalies and Controversies *
Justice Served
Sign Our Guestbook * View or Guestbook * Links * TRAPO Home
Ang Katotohanan [the Truth]
Site Created and Maintained By Kidlat Tahimik
Last Updated: March 12, 2001 Disclaimer:
Since January 24, 2001
If you would like the article about you or your picture to be excluded from this site,
sorry ka na lang.
Ito ang hatol ng bayan. Bato-bato sa langit, tamaan talagang pangit.