EDITORIAL - That SC decision and the maturity of leaders

Some people believe the Supreme Court ruled 11-4 to dismiss the PCSO plunder case against former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo for no other reason than to please President Duterte, who promised during the campaign to free Arroyo if elected. That is one way of looking at it. Another way is, of course, that the high court did not free Arroyo earlier because it did not wish to embarrass then president Aquino, who claimed jailing Arroyo was the hallmark of his presidency.

The release of Arroyo, it must be admitted, is not an acquittal but a dismissal for insufficiency of evidence. But it is easy to see why many people view it as an acquittal. If Arroyo was the showcase of Aquino's anti-corruption drive, how come the Aquino government, with its resources and judicial allies, failed to produce the evidence required to secure conviction of their most coveted prize despite being in power for six years? Couldn't it be that it absolutely just didn't have any?

To say Arroyo was freed to please Duterte is, therefore, a little too wishy-washy to be taken seriously and only the hopelessly pro-Aquino would risk their own credibility insisting on such an untenable reality. The only real and objective way of looking at it, therefore, is shorn of all politically-motivated theorizing, the absolute majority 11-4 decision is such a crystal clear ruling it leaves no room for ambiguity that only a close decision can.

While it is true that nine of the 15 justices are Arroyo appointees and only six were named by Aquino, the manner in which they voted effectively rejects any malicious imputation of bias on their part. Of the nine justices appointed by Arroyo, only eight voted to free her. One voted against letting her walk. On the other hand, of the six justices appointed by Aquino, exactly half, or only three of them, voted to keep Arroyo in hospital detention. The other three voted to set her free.

The 11 who voted to free Arroyo for insufficiency of evidence, with their appointing power in parenthesis, are: Presbitero Velasco (Arroyo); Teresita de Castro (Arroyo); Arturo Brion (Arroyo); Diosdado Peralta (Arroyo); Lucas Bersamin (Arroyo); Mariano del Castillo (Arroyo); Jose Perez (Arroyo); Jose Mendoza (Arroyo); Bienvenido Reyes (Aquino); Estela Perlas Bernabe (Aquino); and Francis Jardeliza (Aquino).

The four justices who voted there was ground to keep Arroyo incarcerated were: Antonio Carpio (Arroyo); Ma. Lourdes Sereno (Aquino); Marvic Leonen (Aquino); and Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa (Aquino). If there is any bias at all to impute on the manner in which these justices voted on this particular case, it might do well for those who think so to do their own research and find out how these justices voted whenever issues involving Arroyo or Aquino were in question.

The bottomline, however, is that the Supreme Court has spoken and its ruling must be respected by everyone. But if it is any indication of the maturity of either Duterte or Aquino in respecting a co-equal branch of government, Aquino has already come out blazing with harsh criticism of the decision, as if he was more erudite than the justices. Duterte has not spoken a word.