Condemned without trial

The biggest and most noticeable difference between this administration and the previous ones is in the observance of the “Rule of Law.” It is quite clear and undeniable that under the present administration, the “Rule of Law” is often disregarded or ignored. And this is manifested once more in the recent order of Duterte to release next week the list of politicians involved in illegal drug activities.

From any point of view, this order violates the rule of law. The politicians in said list are mere suspects in the violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law which is a criminal offense. They have not yet been accused, arrested, arraigned and tried for said crime which they allegedly committed. If the list is released and publicized they are in effect being already condemned. So such action is apparently against Section 14 (1), Article III of the Constitution which states that: “No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.” As held in the case of Nunez vs. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433, “Due Process of Law” means that the accused is informed as to why he is proceeded against and what charge he has to meet, with his conviction being made to rest on evidence that is not tainted with falsity after full opportunity for him to rebut it and the sentence to be imposed is in accordance with law. The court that rendered the decision must also be a court of competent jurisdiction.” In essence “Due process of law” is a “law which hears before it condemns” In the case of the alleged “narco-politicians” in the list, they are already condemned before being heard if the list is released and published.

Furthermore, according to Paragraph 2 of Section 14 Article III, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of evidence in his behalf. All these processes are disregarded in this case of the narco-politicians in the list because they are, in effect, already presumed guilty even before the necessary and appropriate charges are filed against them and before they are tried and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Also deplorable in this connection is the manner in which the list has been drawn up and obtained. As announced by Malacanang, said list was obtained through wire tapping. Such list is therefore inadmissible as evidence pursuant to the Anti Wiretapping Law. The issue here is how the list was obtained and not where it was obtained. If it is obtained illegally it is inadmissible as evidence.

Most intriguing here is that despite having said list, no criminal or administrative charges have been filed against those listed as involved in illegal drugs. People are therefore maliciously surmising and thinking that the list is either being used as a means of extortion or that some official under this administration are also part of the illegal drug activities in connivance with these politicians.

At this juncture therefore, the best move that this administration should take is to immediately file the charges in court against these politicians if they have evidence to show that there is probable cause in accusing them and proving them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is the move that will show their sincerity and determination to get rid of the illegal drugs menace now prevalent in our country.

Another controversial issue that indicates a disregard for the rule of law by the present administration is on the appointment of Benjamin Diokno as Governor of the Central Bank of the Philippines. Initially, Presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo, who is a lawyer and chief presidential legal counsel, opined that Diokno’s appointment would need the confirmation of the Congressional Commission on Appointments (CA). But in a complete reversal of his position, he now asserts that said appointment does not have to be confirmed by the CA by citing the ruling in the case of Calderon vs. Carale, (G.R. 91636, April 23, 1992) That case involves the appointment of the chairman and members of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which under Article 215 of the Labor Code as amended by RA 6715 require the confirmation of the CA. The SC in said case ruled that said provision is unconstitutional as it runs counter to Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution which provides that: The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution.

The Central Bank Governor is the head of an independent office like the other Constitutional Commission such as the Commission on Audit, the Civil Service Commission, or The Commission on Elections whose appointments are vested in the President under the Constitution. Thus the Central Bank Governor can be considered as “other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution” which also requires confirmation by the CA. Therefore, Panelo’s previous stand and opinion that the appointment of Diokno need CA confirmation seems to be more correct and less controversial.

* * *

Email: [email protected]