Presumed guilty

 

 

Without fully understanding the implications of what he says in public, President Benigno Aquino III is actually supplanting the time-honored principle of presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt. Even worse is his arrogance to ensconce a double standard of morality in politics.

 

On one hand, President Aquino believes Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Ramon Revilla and Jinggoy Estrada are guilty as charged of corruption, plunder and other crimes against the government. All of them are presumed guilty to the eyes of President Aquino, just like most everyone else is led to believe, even if the charges are still in the process of being filed before the Sandiganbayan.

 

On the other hand, people like the President’s Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, Agriculture Secretary Proceso Alcala, and Technical Educational and Skills Development Authority director general Joel Villanueva who were also named in the list of those involved in the pork barrel scandal are innocent to his eyes. To the President, his cabinet men are on a different plane and should be presumed innocent unless proven guilty by a court of law.

 

Members of the Kilusang Mayo Uno wear masks depicting President Benigno
Aquino, Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas, lawyer Lorna Kapunan, and
(on wheelchair) alleged pork barrel queen Janet Lim-Napoles during a rally in
Mendiola. The rallyists called for an end to the preferential treatment being
accorded Napoles. Photo by Alexis Corpuz.

Curiously, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo continues to be detained even if none of the charges laid against her have not been proven by the state. Because President Aquino and the public in general are all convinced that Arroyo is guilty by any stretch of imagination.

 

This is the new normal under President Aquino’s administration. Allies and friends are presumed innocent while political enemies are presumed guilty.

 

However, the bastardization of the presumption of innocence under the Aquino presidency is not without its merits. After all, the reality is that no defendant would face trial unless it is believed there is probable cause that the defendant was guilty of a crime. They wouldn’t have prosecuted the accused if he or she weren’t guilty of something, which is the common supposition before the court. For instance, outside of the formal investigation process, there is widespread public knowledge, thanks to media scrutiny and vigilance, that those involved in the pork barrel scandal are factually guilty even though a trial has not been set for them to face the charges.

 

The only problem with this presumption of guilt is it could apply to all accused of corruption in government. Guilt is a very wide net that can catch everyone in the government, whether by suspicion or mere inference, and regardless of rank or pay grade. That said, even President Aquino is not immune from a presumption of guilt for he could be as culpable as any of his cabinet staff or his dreaded political enemies.



President Noynoy Aquino with one of his most trusted men in cabinet, Budget
 Secretary Florencio Abad. Could Aquino be talking about Abad's innocence?

But as an alternative to a presumption of innocence, a presumption of guilt is inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society. Thus, the presumption of innocence is not just symbolic but essential to the criminal process.

 

What does the presumption of innocence mean?

 

The presumption of innocence is a vital part of our criminal law system. It means that the accused doesn’t have to prove he or she is innocent. Instead, the job falls on the prosecutor or the state to prove the accused guilty. In other words, unless the accused has been proved to have committed the crime, he or she is entitled to be acquitted or found “not guilty.”

 

The underlying purpose of this presumption is to protect the rights of individuals when the state accuses them of a crime. It is often said that it is better that the guilty go free than the innocent be convicted.

 

But the judicial system is not without controversy. Some see the system as being stacked in favour of the accused, rather than protecting their rights. And despite all of the protection in the system, miscarriages of justice still happen where innocent people are convicted. Those in positions of power are generally perceived as more likely than those outside this circle to exercise warped judgment, transforming the criminal justice system into an instrument to protect themselves and their exercise of power.

 

President Aquino’s exhortation, therefore, that his cabinet secretaries should be presumed innocent rather than guilty as he has characterized the actions of his political enemies, is clearly aimed in protecting and preserving the incorruptibility of his government. In short, he is ignoring the true purpose of the presumption of innocence while affirming that many of those accused or alleged to have been involved in the pork barrel scandal are presumed guilty just because they happen to be his political enemies.

 

Civil society, however, is under no obligation to refrain from criticism of government officials based on a blatant misunderstanding of presumption of innocence. This is particularly relevant in the current situation in which the public is being fed with too much conflicting information about government corruption.

 

There are many incompatible lists of individuals implicated in the scandal and inconsistent testimonies between the alleged mastermind or potential state witness and whistleblowers who could be motivated by personal or vested interests. The executive and legislative branches of government seem to be at a loss on how to proceed with their respective investigations.

 

Spokespersons for the President appear to offer differing statements on behalf of the administration. The Ombudsman has left for a trip abroad without filing the charges against the three aforementioned senators before the Sandiganbayan. Even half-brothers elected to the Senate are at odds with each other as to the possible fallout of the scandal on their own political careers prompting their father, a disgraced former president for acts of plunder, to intervene.

Could there be any connection between President Aquino and the alleged pork barrel
queen, Janet Napoles, here in a photo taken in 2012?

It’s a political circus which the pork barrel scandal has created, muddling the fundamental issue of corruption in government, which appears lost in the crucial examination because the personalities and characters involved have become more important rather than their own sins and omissions.

 

In the end, either President Aquino should presume all are innocent before trial or all are presumed guilty. Not where others have more legal rights and therefore presumed innocent. The better approach it seems is to take heed of President Aquino’s presumption of guilt for those implicated in the scandal, but it should include his own men if he wants to appear fair and just.

 

Let’s throw the presumption of innocence off the bus and declare everyone guilty, and let them prove their innocence. It makes more sense to reverse the burden of proof and let it fall on the accused, especially for those in the public service. Every time that public trust is breached, people are deceived.

 

Indulging a presumption of innocence before a finding of guilt is too much of an accommodation to give. Besides, this demand for a presumption of innocence outside of criminal court is both cunning and deceitful when the President of the country uses it to excuse the culpability of his own cabinet.

 

It is no doubt cold comfort for President Aquino to subscribe to a generous interpretation of the presumption of innocence that applies only to his allies and friends. This interpretation would not comport with the supposed persistence of a foundational legal principle, especially when stretched outside its province.

 

Furthermore, this is like expecting a lot or dreaming about the impossible from a failed system where corruption is widespread and so pervasive. No wonder that the Philippines consistently belongs in the exclusive list of “failed states,” in the dishonourable company of other countries who have miserably and ineffectually failed to solve corruption in government.

Double standard makes truth a casualty

Our family dog, a Golden Retriever, is easy to love. He’s very amiable even to strangers, a gentle disposition that sometimes is not very good for a dog that doesn’t show any form of hostility to other animals, to people or his peers. We can ignore his barking because it is all sound and fury and nothing more. True, he chases squirrels in our backyard but not because he dislikes them. The poor squirrel always has to scurry up the trees to escape our dog’s atypical wrath, if only the squirrel knew our dog merely wanted to play.

Onegin, our family dog sits in the backyard while contemplating on the double
standard tendency by society. Click link to view "George Carlin America was
founded on a double standard," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSJmYnHdvsc

Most, if not all, dogs (or other domesticated animals) are unlike humans. People are not always true to themselves, with their emotions or thoughts. Because their brains are wired differently, we often think human beings are superior. Arguably so, but that’s not for us to debate. The important observation we can make of dogs is that they treat other dogs or humans equally, not so with people who can always disguise or mask their true intentions, which makes human interaction a much more tricky relationship.

People look at others through their bifocal lenses. They always talk about ideas, such as what they can do and what others can’t, from a split perspective. This dual tendency toward others and their behaviour or thoughts, depending on where we stand in society, is generally the cause of the double standard or worse, duplicity in the way we treat others. This is self-evident in our political and moral views, in the little groups where we belong, and the great divide between the far-advanced West and the East that has lagged behind for many decades due to colonization in the past and now to the globalization of the economy.

In our own familiar organizations, whether in the community, profession or school where we went to, we tend to elevate people to a certain status because they’re simply popular or perhaps because of their success. We often do this to the detriment of others whom we relegate to the margins because their struggles have been unheard of.

A double standard of acceptance usually works on the metrics of likeability. If you’re less likeable, then you’re likely to be ignored no matter how sensible your ideas or suggestions are. Someone will be more liked if he regularly fraternizes with other members of the group and shares his personal opinions which you don’t necessarily agree to because either they are expressed in a bungling manner or are totally inane and useless. But again, that could be your own standard as opposed to what’s held by others.

An example of double standard. Bill Reilly argues that Viagra should be covered
by health care, but not birth control. Photo courtesy of Jean Farr.

Being duplicitous or having a set of double standards in treating others doesn’t just stick to us Filipinos because of our thick skin. This is true to the whole of North America (meaning the United States and Canada) in its attitude towards other countries, particularly those of Islamic religious persuasion.

Take the recent caustic sentiments raised by GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum toward the Obama administration. Romney has repeatedly criticized U.S. President Obama for apologizing to the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq for some intolerable behaviour by members of the U.S. military. If elected, Romney said he would never be apologetic, because to him that is a sign of weakness, without even putting Obama’s apology in its right context. The same goes with Santorum who said he will bomb Iran if he were the U.S. President, revealing clearly that he is against nuclear proliferation especially if it falls on Moslem hands. Such rhetoric ignores the sensitive feelings of those at the receiving end. But this is the way the most powerful country in the world always argues; it talks down to other countries despite the reality that geopolitics today are best handled through peaceful diplomacy, not through sabre rattling.

Harold Hongju Koh, dean of Yale Law School, in his testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 2007 best summed up this American warrior mentality and duplicity in treating both allies and enemies, when he said:

“[W]e now fail to tell the full truth about our human rights conduct, or that of our allies in the War on Terror. Increasingly, we avoid application of universal standards: whether the rules against torture and cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. But the United States cannot lead the world with moral authority unless we hold ourselves to the same high standards that we demand from others. The U.S. has put its own human rights practices center stage by promoting double standards for our allies, and arguing in favor of “law-free zones” (like Guantanamo), “law-free practices” (like extraordinary rendition), “law-free persons” (who are dubbed “enemy combatants”), and “law-free” courts, (like the system of military commissions, which have failed to deliver credible justice and are currently being challenged in our courts for the recent stripping of the writ of habeas corpus). Through these misguided policies, the administration has shifted the world's focus from the grotesque human rights abuses of the terrorists to America's own human rights misconduct, leaving other, equally pressing issues elsewhere ignored or unaddressed.”

Cartoon depicting West's double standard re nuclear proliferation. By boris. rasin.

The ongoing impeachment trial of the Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice is the most recent example of how this practice of double standard works. Right after the articles of impeachment were sent to the Senate, Philippine President Noynoy Aquino and his cabal of close advisers from his student days in Ateneo immediately went on a media frenzy with only one purpose in mind – to influence the public debate on whether to impeach Renato Corona.

Noynoy would speak in public gatherings demonizing the Chief Justice as the remaining stumbling block to his platform of cleaning the government of graft and corruption. His advisers would do the same thing, from his presidential spokesman to his Secretary of Justice, and even to allied senator-judges who will try Corona in the Senate. Columnists in the local media who are perceived to be close to Noynoy Aquino would write pompous opinions almost daily on why Corona should go, even calling for people power demonstration like EDSA I if the Senate should acquit the Chief Justice.

The prosecution panel has rested its case against Corona. Before the defence could start to present its side of the argument, the Chief Justice was also making rounds explaining in public forums why he was targeted by Noynoy for impeachment. The media began publishing stories on the family feud between Corona and his wife with the wife’s clan regarding their family inheritance, which is not particularly germane to the impeachment hearing but toxic in portraying the personal character of the Chief Justice and his wife.

Noynoy’s allies would condemn the Chief Justice for acting like a politician, admonishing him that it was inappropriate for him to talk about a pending legal matter before the public square. The Corona prosecution brigade had become suddenly afflicted with amnesia forgetting that they started talking about the impeachment issue before the public arena, with President Noynoy Aquino being the most vocal drumbeater.

This clearly illustrates that what is good for Noynoy Aquino is not the same for others. It’s wrong when others do or say what he does or say. Noynoy as President is entitled to his own moral standards. When two of his cabinet members were implicated in alleged irregularities, Noynoy Aquino was reminded by critics of his “daang matuwid” (straight path) policy on corruption. Yet, Noynoy came to the defence of his officials who were his close friends during their college years, thus sweeping the allegations under the rag.

One Filipino columnist wrote about Corona: “The question is not merely: Is this the person you want to continue to become chief justice? The question is: How in hell did this creature become chief justice in the first place?”

Harsh words for the Chief Justice of the land, as if one is talking about a heinous criminal. But then who’s talking – one who staunchly defended Ferdinand Marcos when he was a young and upcoming writer plucked from obscurity to promote the ideals of the New Society. Now, he’s become the great defender of people power and President Noynoy Aquino even if the latter is suborning Congress to rubber stamp anything he wants, never mind if it destroys the constitutional foundations of the country which his own mother helped restore.

Another columnist wrote: “How many dirty justices, judges and lawyers are there?” As if all members of the legal profession are dirty and corrupt. Yet he turns a blind eye to the sinister plot of Noynoy’s cabal of legal advisers who was responsible in contriving the impeachment of the Chief Justice so their President can ventilate his own personal vendetta.

Does it still matter anymore, whether one is a lawyer or a plain citizen, to have your day in court? That everyone is entitled to due process, to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

It’s almost certain that Corona would be found guilty by the Senate. President Noynoy Aquino has made it clear and known to all that this is what he wants at the end of the trial.

Double standard or duplicity is the new golden rule. Or maybe, it’s not. Since the first man walked on this earth, it has always been that whoever has power lays down the rule. That rule is only good for the one who has power, not for everyone else. Human societies are built in such a way that those in control will always have the ability to disguise or mask the nature of the truth, or its real meaning. Whether deliberately by deception or distortion of the language used, the truth becomes a casualty and the moral standards attached to human behaviour will always be based upon their usefulness to those who have the power.