Skip to main content

Denying the Truth

IT IS NO accident that we refer to God as the Truth with the capital "T." Truth has a way of getting through no matter the obstacles that those who want to deny it will put up on its way as long as people of good will do something actively to uphold it. In fact, even in the denial of truth, truth itself can be revealed.

At this early point of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, the truth made itself unsuppressable despite the attempts of the defense team headed by former associate justice Serafin Cuevas. It is understandable that the defense lawyers are doing what they think their job is in preventing their client from getting convicted for the Second Article of Impeachment. It is understandable, and in fact expected, of them to do what they usually do in criminal courts, going to technical objections on every turn in the hope that objections can suppress the truth with so much adversarial hullabaloo.

But what the defense failed to see is the fact that each time they tried to suppress an evidence against Corona, they are indirectly admitting that the evidence can be damaging to their case. And an evidence can only be damaging when it is consistent and supportive to the complaint filed against the client. It shows only that even the defense team knows, or at least suspects, that the client can be guilty as charged. That's the only reason to fear the evidence. That's the only reason to fear the truth that the evidence might bring into the case. Their attempts at denying the truth a hearing for the day telegraphs to the people that they feared the truth--the truth that their client is guilty.

Such is one fatal tactic that the defense team has fallen into. They forget that the impeachment proceeding is not a criminal trial but a search for the truth that is not bound to the rules of the criminal court; rules that can be bogged down by legal technicalities. The impeachment court does not need proof of criminal act, but of certainty that the client does not merit the peoples' trust. And what can destroy that trust the more is their obvious maneuvers at preventing the truth from coming out.

Had the defense showed itself open for the truth to come out, people will know that they too are there looking for the truth. That they too are there to confirm their confidence on the innocence of their client, and want to find out the truth by welcoming all the evidence that the accusers can present against the client; not to hide behind all technicalities they can summon to justify their objections against evidences. This fatal error can be the undoing of their case before the eyes of the Filipino people, and obviously before the Impeachment Court whose senator-judges are not blind to the motives behind these delatory tactics, these efforts to suppress the truth. 

Here's my unsolicited advise to the defense team. If they truly believe that Corona is not guilty as charged in the articles of impeachment, let the prosecution present all the evidence they can in order to clear out the air of suspicion building over the head of their client. Otherwise, they will lose this case, for sure, and in both courts--that of the Impeachment Court and that of the public opinion.

At the end of the day, the truth will eventually prevail in this trial. The Senate convened as the Impeachment Court that tries the Chief Justice is fully accountable to the people for uncovering the truth behind these allegations. If it cannot do its job, the heads of the senators will roll during the elections. And if the chief magistrate is indeed guilty as charged, it is high time that he be replaced from such a critical post in our democracy. Doing less than that is a sin whose impact can redound to future generations, and by its consequence unforgivable.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Elite" Cry-Babies?

I CANNOT IMAGINE how an operative of the Special Counter-Insurgency Operations Unit (SCOU), when caught by insurgents and subjective to the worse torture imaginable, can ever survive with their mental faculties intact. But that's exactly what's going to happen if the recent products of SCOU Training cry foul, or more specifically 'hazing,' when they are subjected to the hard realities of law enforcent that handles counterinsurgency operations. Operatives must be physically hard and mentally sturdy to survive the prospect of getting captured without squelling reserved information to the enemy. I am disappointed to hear that the recent batch of SCOUT trainees considered their physical ordeals during training as 'hazing.' Have they entertained the thought that they were in Camp Ceferino Genovia in Barangay Bahay for an exotic 45-day vacation? If they cannot endure physical pain during training, they must ship out because real life counterinsurgency work
Post a Comment
Read more

Skirting the Issues of Bad Journalism

AMADO DORONILA of the Philippine Daily Inquirer writes today about the perceived coercion that President Benigno Aquino III made on the press in defense of his "passion for flashy cars," and for  his lifestyle as a "pampered son of a wealthy family living an unfrugal life." I encountered some confusion on how Mr. Doronila reasoned out his understanding on how frugal life is meant to be lived. Does he meant to keep the money on the vault unused simply for the sake of not spending them? That will be a suggestion for a miser's lifestyle. Aquino may have "bought," actually exchanged, a third-hand Porsche for his old BMW for approximately the same valuation of P4.5 million. In effect, there was no significant money spent for the acquisition, except perhaps a sales tax if that applied. And here Mr. Doronila concluded that the new President of the Republic is living an "unfrugal life" (did he expect Mr. Aquino to sell the luxury car he had befor
Post a Comment
Read more

Gifts of Discounts

SECTION 13 of the New Code of Philippine Judicial Conduct (27 April 2004) stated: Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for nor receive any gift, bequest, loan, or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance of judicial duties. Its annotation explains that: Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of money value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office." The key phrase here is--"in the course of their official duties." It means that as long as a judge remains a judge of Philippine courts, this Code applies, prohibiting any receipt, directly or indirectly, from any person. The question then is: Is a discount a gift? On 3
Post a Comment
Read more