Did the president offend Rama?
On Monday evening, the biggest headline that baffled me was the dismissal by the National Prosecution Service of the Department of Justice of the drugs cases against Peter Lim and Kerwin Espinosa, along with others whose names sounded unfamiliar to me. The panel of investigators reportedly found the evidence to be weak, meaning there was no probable cause to file in court cases against Peter and Kerwin.
I am questioning the findings of the prosecutors. Their situation was unenviable. With the tremendous public pressure the cases carried, they had to be careful and thorough in evaluating evidences thrown their way. We should remember that President Duterte himself publicly mentioned the names of Peter and Kerwin as drug lords. The way Duterte identified them among the country's biggest drug traders showed he was in possession of incriminating evidence to put them to jail. Given that, I understand how the fiscals assigned to the cases realized the sensitive nature of their undertaking.
Such dismissal of the Peter and Kerwin cases has serious implications.The first thing I remember was the late Mayor Espinosa, father of Kerwin. If not murdered in jail, would the investigating prosecutors also dismiss drug charges against him for lack of evidence, like what they did to Kerwin? Another was Ozamiz City Mayor Parohinog, who Duterte named as another drug lord. Parohinog and few others were shot dead reportedly by policemen who attacked his residence. The immediate impact of the dismissal of the cases against Peter and Kerwin, we could understand how the Espinosa and Parohinog families felt wronged! The killings of their patriarchs could only be murder.
What the government lawyers in the DOJ did, in effect, was to unmask Duterte as a liar. Finding no probable cause to file information in court against Peter and Kerwin, the prosecutors belied Duterte's claim that these people are into drug trade, and Duterte is peddling lies. What if the president was untruthful in accusing the deceased mayors of being drug lords?
The good thing going in favor of Peter and Kerwin was that, following Duterte's accusation, complaints were initiated and made respondents to formal charges. While such presidential indictment damaged their honor and reputation, they had the chance to air their side. It was a hell of a fight for them being tagged as drug lords, fearing even that the fate of the two mayors could befall on them. I opine their defense was credible and solid, that the fiscals could not do anything better than to rule Duterte's claims were not founded on verifiable facts.
During the celebration of the Cebu City Charter, (Feb. 24), Atty. Michael Rama said he and his family were offended by President Duterte. It was unimaginable for any citizen of this country, even if he's a former mayor, to utter against the president ponderous accusations as: "you (Mr. President) offended me." Rama must have only wanted to reflect the kind of pain and consequent damage he suffered when the president accused him as a drug protector.
I believe Rama was probably justified. His name was pilloried, his dignity shattered by a libelous statement made by the country's leader. Yet Duterte ordered no agency to file any complaint against him. Rama, not facing any accusation in any venue, is denied his day in court, unlike Peter and Kerwin who were favored by events. They had the opportunity to show their innocence, the chance lawyers called as due process-which is denied Rama. Mr. President why not file a case against Atty. Rama to let him adduce proof of his innocence. If you have no evidence, Mr. President, then do justice to Atty. Rama.
- Latest
