Criminal Curricula
I should probably re-enroll in law school.
The way things are going, basic criminal law tenets of the Republic of the Philippines are about to get upended. Most everything I learned is being tossed out the window. (Me with it.)
Consider the presumption of innocence, a foundational precept that wrapped its seductive sinews around my bleeding martial law baby's heart. Innocent, at all times. Innocent, even if poor. Innocent, even if one looks as ugly as sin. If there is no evidence, the accused walks scot-free. One doesn't even have to open one's mouth to proclaim innocence.
Conversely, there is the concept of guilt. Guilty, only when proven beyond reasonable doubt. Guilty, only after a judge says so. Guilty, only after a chance to be heard is given.
Well, scratch that. Nowadays, the trend is reversing, especially for certain crimes.
Guilty, especially when someone in authority says so. Guilty, because the apprehending officer says so. Guilty, because the citizen ran away. Guilty, because she was poor, disempowered, filthy, and trapped in a world of substance abuse.
Innocent? Come again? In the future, lord knows what hoops one will have to go through in order to prove innocence. Maybe, the right relative working in the corridors of power? Enough endorsers of the accused's character? Or even, a celebrity blogger who can summon millions of fans and trolls to mount a publicity campaign proclaiming virtue and piety and the right party affiliation?
There was this elementary principle taught us by Professor Bienvenido Ambion that elementary kids were too young to know the gravity of their crimes. Thus, as a recognition of the limited facilities they have to process information, children, including teenagers, were either entirely exempt from criminal liability, or if not, then their sentences were reduced, if not commuted.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to a brave, new, trail-blazing Philippines, where criminality is recognized and tackled at the very source: right when it's hardening in a juvenile delinquent's hard skull. The frontiers of criminal law are being stretched, allowing sophisticated criminal psychologists, with degrees bestowed by the Philippine legislature, to point their accusing fingers at nine-year-olds and tell them to skip dinner and go marching straight to their rooms – in Bilibid prison. Professor Ambion must be itching to teach in the hallowed room which bears his name. That, or haunt all those regurgitating this new-fangled philosophy.
We were also taught to be very careful of accusing anyone of a crime without the proper evidence. That was the fastest way to be the subject of a libel suit, a defamation case, or even a disbarment proceeding.
Dare I say those thoughts don't cross anyone's minds any longer? Especially not those in the political arena. Or in social media.
Today, there is a proclivity of accusations hurled at political enemies. Name-calling galore. "He's a lying, scum-faced, badly-dressed criminal!"We are warned, and damn right, the peacocks crow, those crimes can be proven! And if there is no evidence produced now, well, it will definitely follow. At the opportune time when the case is filed, for sure. Or maybe, never, if the accuser loses interest or the political victory is already assured. What would be the point of proceeding if victory is nigh?
If a public persona can falsely accuse another personality of a crime, and no charges come his or her way, then the rules are definitely so much more lax when it comes to non-crimes, like creating controversial and fake news, violently disagreeing with random strangers' opinions in the hopes of causing mayhem, and conversing about purported sex tapes. Damn right, there's nothing to fear there.
In the law school of tomorrow, we will skip through Evidence (Plant it!), Criminal Procedure (Shoot first! He who lives, wins!) and Special Proceedings (What writ of habeas corpus?). Constitutional Law will be an elective for the morbidly curious, and the crucible that is internship will be most fruitfully spent in the pits of power, rather than in representing the indigent.
Jurisprudence will be dead, and only those armed with a tablet and a penchant for catchy phrases and twisting the truth will finish with a degree.
I hate being so optimistic.
- Latest
