In largely procedural fashion, the Supreme Court has issued a writ of habeas corpus requiring the Senate to explain the basis for the arrest and continued detention of Jocelyn ’Joc Joc ‘ Bolante.
Surely this is the majesty of the law at work despite the widespread public estimation that Bolante is guilty as hell in the fraudulent handling of aid funds for farmers.
But in reality, since his return last October 28, his malingering at a 5-star hospital, and script-guided appearances before congressional panels, Mr. Bolante has been toying with his grillers, and the public, with patently evasive answers and his incredible version of the truth.
Now you even have Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago advocating, not wrongly, that Bolante be freed and the Senate blue ribbon committee trying to save face by hurriedly charging the former agriculture undersecretary with rendering false testimony eight times.
Between the continued inaction of the Ombudsman and a Pasay court taking jurisdiction of the false testimony cases, it will really continue to be a walk in the park for the alleged architect of the PhP 728-M fertilizer fund scam.
To the ordinary Filipino who understands what is playing out, the majesty of the law has been turned into nothing but a travesty.
Popularity: 1% [?]
ay, nako, kapag sinabi na ni deQuiros na guilty, then guilty. Forget the law at ebidensiya-ebidensiya!!!
only cements i think what’s been wrong for a long time, me thinks.
Pat, I’ll take a bet. There will be vigorous reactions to your comment. Witholding my own for now. :)
Exactly the point coy,
What is tragic about this me thinks is we are supposed to find succor in the law, right? What’s thew opposite? Anarchy? Apart of the grinding poverty and apparent misgovernance, Filipinos are voting with their feet to seek new live overseas.
ding, if there was any travesty, i think it was in the way that bolante was tarred, skinned and condemned after a sensationalized media lynching fed and stoked by a politically-motivated senate investigation.
i think it would be very hard, if not impossible, to find an unbiased court to try the “false testimony” charge against bolante after such a circus. in the u.s. where there is a jury trial, prosecution would be an extremely uphill undertaking, i would think.
btw, the current scandal over illinois governor rod blagojevich’s alleged scheme to sell pres. elect obama’s soon-to-be-vacated senate seat and other alleged transgressions, has been investigated very, very quietly and discreetly by the fbi since october – no leaks, no punditry, no gossips, no political machinations by opposing parties. nothing was said about it until a formal complaint has been filed.
i leave it up to you, ding, to make the obvious comparison with the way we handle things over there.
Atty. Ben,
Cultural? We are Filipinos and they are Americans. And hey at how Bolante has been given his Christmas gift? How about the farmers he and his ilk defrauded. I wonder if Bolante will dare walk the streets without his usual retinue of security men?
The Bolante caper is a pure case of Police and DOJ work but it has assumed a political color because of the effort to connect the alleged swindle to the first Couple as always is the case whenever bigtime brigandage occurs.
To leave the matter to the proper agency of the bureaucracy means you have to put up evidence to make your case stick, that we assume that the suspect does not have the connections from the corridors of power to make the bureaucracy works in an ideal fashion.
But Bolante is a Rotarian and Rotarians are well-connected. One big Rotarian is FG himself. So if you try to bring Bolante to the DOJ to answer for the millions of fertilizer funds he had allegedly distributed to party politicians during the 2004 elections you cannot expect his patrons to sit idly. They will gang up on the poor DOJ prosecutor to udermine whatever evidence you have against Bolante.
The participation of Congress over a simple case of violation of the anti-graft act underscores that distrust by Congress over the Executive Department whose occupant it has already perceived to be the mastermind in this fertilizer scam. And if true, the mastermind would not allow herself to be dragged into this if she could help it. So the DOJ is not the proper forum to handle this matter.
The US experience pales in comparison with the way we handle our prosecution of our criminals. The well-connected are never prosecuted, only the powerless.
Where a well-connected had some brush up with the law, prosecuted and convicted, expect the wheel of justice to make an unexpected turn. Erap got his reprieve while the ink in the pages of his conviction have yet to settle dry on those pages.
that’s exactly the whole problem, ding. see, you have already formed a judgment about bolante having “defrauded” the farmers without an iota of evidence being presented in court, let alone being proven guilty in a court of law. whatever happened to “presumed innocent until proven guilty”?
so, how come the senators are only charging him with false testimony instead of defrauding the farmers, as you have unflinchingly concluded?
The media and its “reporters” cannot seem to let go of the 1980′s-vintage idea that they are some bunch of “heroes” that gallop in to rescue Pinoys from their chronic victimisation.
At the end of the day news reporting is a profitable business enterprise that can be classified under the entertainment industry. So for us to see the Philippine Media as some sort of perverse “guardian of freedom” is simply us living up to our world-renowned nation of starstruck ignoramuses reputation.
And as Isagani Cruz observed (quoted in my book):
Pinoys need to get out of the habit of living with the results of other people’s flawed thinking.
ben,
Remember Al Capone? He’s got other misdeeds, murder, bribery and smuggling but the government nailed him on tax evasion.
Congress cannot take him up on “fund scam” because that is for the DOJ to do. The Senate investigation was framed from that all-encompassing doctrine, “in aid of legislation”, and its sanction against those who tried to make congress look like shit is for the Senate to make that person spend overnight at its holding cell, or in the alternative, to charge the person for perjury, in connection with his testimony in Congress. Sadly, despite its awesome political clout Congress cannot file graft charges against Bolante because it is not one of its institutional functions.
Congress should have transmitted its report to the Ombudsman/DOJ for proper disposition, but thse agencies cannot be expected to discharge their sworn duties when the indictee is well-connected and his patrons can pull the strings.
tough luck, jcc. but not at the expense of bolante’s constitutional rights. i’m sure you can appreciate that.
as i always maintain, the law is not rendered inutile by its being violated.
JCC,
Ahem. but the Senate DID transmit its report to the Ombudsman way back in 2005! But she did nuthingk, as Schulz would say. She has been derelict in her duty, but tough luck, eh JCC?
One wonders which of Jocjoc’s Constitutional rights have ever been in any danger? His guilty flight sez it all. It’s time for him to pay the Piper. No, the Law is not rendered inutile by its being violated. That happens when Justice is left undone and brazen violaters get off scot-free, with our bencardian blessings.
Are we to keep silent as citizens until some craven miscreant like Mr. Bolante is charged, tried and convicted in a Court of Law, as Bencard admonishes? I don’t think so. The Ombudsman has 100,000 case backlog after all. Damn lawyers! We have every right and duty to call public officials like Bolante to account. We have every right and duty to demand that Justice be done.
djb, avoiding pompous verbosity, this is what i say to you:
1. the ombudsman indicts only when he thinks the case is airtight. politically-motivated charges are usually not.
2. if you you think you can prove the ombudsman has been “derelict” in her duty, why don’t you sue her or initiate her removal from office?
3. you don’t think presumption of innocence is a constitutional right? it figures.
4. “flight” is only a basis for inference. it’s not necessarily evidence of guilt. ask a lawyer.
4. you will appreciate what i’m saying here when you find yourself in bolante’s shoes (whether or not you would eventually be found guilty). maybe you will need “damn lawyers” then, unless you can do it yourself.
DJB, BEN,
In one of my comments I said that we must always distinguish between reality and fiction.
Bolante is presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. Flight carries a presumption of guilt, but it is rebuttable. Ideally, if one is not guilty, he should not be afraid to face any one of his accusers, thus the presumption of flight as an indication of guilt.
But inasmuch as this is only a presumption, Bolante is free to prove that his flight is not an indication of guilt, but an indication of reality.
WE cannot trust our courts, nor can we trust the prosecutors, who despite the absence of prima facie evidence, would be minded to file the case, or the court despite absence of evidence, will convict Bolante.
So reality is quite different from what is ideal.
But let us furher analyze the case of Mr. Bolante. He was the Undersecretary of Agriculture who distributed the funds for farmers to the politicians in the party during the 2004 election.
Any sensible person would read this distribution as nothing but a campaign kitty disbursement and not for fertilizers for the farmets. He is a Rotarian and so was the first Gentleman who appears to be his sponssor in this cabinet job.
To charge him now for anti-graft while his fellow-rotarian sponsor is still in power would be a tough job, not tough luck.
So the accusers of Mr. Bolante brought him to the political arena where the courts are not relevant and the DOJ inconsequential. Ben calls it lynching, others like DBJ calls it a demand for accountability.
We always try to invoke the protection of the constitution whenever it suits us ignoring that the very basis our invocation is the presence of an ideal systems and institutions that can guaranty that protection, where it is otherwise, these instrumentalities become its perversion.
The political lynching of Bolante underscores the malady in our institutions of patronage and power-brokering. Even while the courts have at times done a splendid job, this power-brokering still rears its ugly head. My best exampple is Erap who was given a reprieve even before the ink dries up in the pages of his conviction.
Ben has succintly cited the case of FBI who investigated the case without the fanfare of publicity and only when the case has been filed that the press was alerted about it.
Ben has failed to inform us that the judicial system of America is quite different from us.
“judicial system is quite different” – still tough luck, man.
if you could not trust the courts, nor the law, then whom would you trust?
what has being a rotarian got to do with anything? giving funds to congressmen for distribution to their constituent-farmers may be highly suspicious but does not necessarily equate to “campaign kitty disbursement”.
Bencard,
Unless the Law can be force for the good, as well as a source of order, it will be nothing but tyranny. When we make these “pompous” demands upon the law, we are not asking YOU for any sort of permission to experience these desires or express these hopes. Your approbation is not sought, necessary or expected. Let the craven and the cynical, like you, stew in your aged brine. Nobody cares about the unsympathetic. They will die full of regrets, themselves unloved and unrequited.
there you go again, djb. who said anything about asking my “permission” or “approbation” about anything? and who said about it being “sought, necessary or expected”?
so, if i sympathize with your “desires” to condemn bolante outright, then the likes of you would “love” me?
Bolante was brought before the bar of public opinion because it is the final arbiter of the behavior of government functionaries, for after all when these people go to the polls in an ideal environment, they can boot them ouf of office, including their corrupt patrons.
Rotarians act like the OPUS Dei. The protect their kind. Ben, please don’t be coy and naive. :)
No Bencard. For others to love you requires that you first love yourself!
But no one is condemning Bolante outright. Don’t be dense, man. The Senate has exercised proper decorum. It issued a report and recommended prosecution to the Ombudsman. Politically motivated? It’s been three years of the tail wagging the dog, three years of Bolante’s constitutional rights. And let us not forget all those witnesses at the DA who’ve contradicted bolante’s testimonies. Sooner or later, Justice will be done. With or without Bencard the Wise shadow-boxing from half way around the world.
Cases Like Jocjoc where lawmakers are involved will never get to Justice.
RECIPIENTS OF THE 728 MILLION FERTILIZER FUND
Good luck na lang sa pinas.
The COA report also said that it was “congressmen, governors, or mayors who previously identified the LGU or the NGO/PO (people’s organization) as beneficiaries of the fund and the suppliers from whom the farm inputs and equipments should be purchased.”
The COA noted that the system the Department of Agriculture used to “download” the funds to LGUs and NGOs and then to suppliers “went (through) a circuitous route thus resulting in fragmented accountability. In addition, there was a weak monitoring of liquidation and accomplishment reports. Consequently, the fund could not be fully accounted for, not to mention specific instances of irregularities found in the course of the audit.”
Lawmakers behind Non governmental organization ( NGO) in tHE 728 MILLION FERTILIZER FUND
And the jury for this trial, are almost the same people who could have been responsible, or was involve, or could have prevented the system from falling apart.
Justice in this country very weak. Even if we assume that the Senate will prosecute, the Court is already sold out. poor pinoy.
so, djb, you have anointed yourself spokesperson for those who won’t love me unless i first love myself? how do you know i don’t love myself?
thanks for your change of tack about condemning bolante outright. there’s hope for you yet. see, it’s not that hard.
jcc, the bar of public opinion does not determine whether or not a crime has been committed or that the accused did it. who is being coy about rotarians, or opus dei. if that’s your theory, wallow in it, but i cannot subscribe to it.
More names to ponder. I still say GMA has fought impeacment because of her/GMA’s politicking AND also because the voters in the baranggays of these folks are not loudly calling for impeachment.
Representatives who voted against the impeachment:
Capiz Rep. Fredenil Castro, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, Baguio City Rep. Mauricio Domogan, Negros Oriental Rep. George Arnaiz, Iloilo Rep. Raul Gonzalez Jr., Cebu Rep. Pablo John Garcia, Cebu Rep. Antonio Cuenco, Antique Rep. Exequiel Javier, Apec Rep. Edgar Valdez, Bohol Rep. Edgardo Chatto, Lanao del Sur Rep. Faysah Dumarpa, Leyte Rep. Eufrocino Codilla, Zamboanga Sibugay Rep. Belma Cabilao, Ifugao Rep. Solomon Chungalao, Zamboanga del Sur Rep. Antonio Cerilles, Masbate Rep. Rizalina Seachon Lanete, Sulu Rep. Munir Arbison, Bohol Rep. Roberto Cajes, Tawi Tawi Rep. Nur Jaafar, La Union Rep. Victor Ortega, Lanao del Sur Rep. Pangalian Balindong, Romblon Rep. Eleandro Madrona, Isabela Rep. Giorgido Aggabao, Cebu Rep. Eduardo Gullas, Quirino Rep. Junie Cua, Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga, Surigao del Norte Rep. Francisco Matugas, Sultan Kudarat Rep. Arnulfo Go, Manila Rep. Theresa Bonoan-David, Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas, Parañaque Rep. Eduardo Zialcita, Cebu Rep. Raul del Mar, Maguindanao Rep. Simeon Datumanong, Cebu Rep. Pablo Garcia Sr., Iloilo Rep. Arthur Defensor, Iloilo Rep. Janette Garin, Quezon City Rep. Bingbong Crisologo, Misamis Occidental Rep. Herminia Ramiro, Bukidnon Rep. Candido Pancrudo, Manila Rep. Zenaida Angping, Negros Occidental Rep. Alfredo Marañon (for Occidental Mindoro Rep. Amelita Villarosa), Agusan del Norte Rep. Jose Aquino.
bencard,
if you have been a fratman you will understand the meaning of corps and fraternalism. everyone protects his own brother. opus dei, rotary and jaycee are elevated forms of fraternities.
crime commission is officially determined by the court, but the public can determine if a crime has been committed by looking into facts of the case and by informing themselves of the facts through official investigation of an official body, in the case of bolante, by the Senate.
the public may not order the incarceration of the person, but their discriminating minds sometimes is better than that of a judge.
though the court is officially the agency that determines who are the criminals and those who are not, its being beholden to cash and power makes that determination color-blind. if you have not been in the practice of law in the philippines, and have not been exposed to court corridors, take it from one who have been there for 19 years, it is ugly and its revolting.
in the case of public perception of the guilt or non-guilt of the suspect, their collective insight have not been colored by wads of bills nor they have been singled out to render their untoward bias against the person subject of the investigation.
Maybe it’s a jury system this country needs then.
The judge can focus on ensuring due process and the soundness of the arguments presented while the jury can focus on the verdict.
But then that’ll be just another system Pinoys will inadvertedly pervert in as yet unforeseen but ingenious ways… :D
Benign0,
You cannot be entirely ignorant of the historical period (some say it has not ended) when even the American People were subject of the most ludicrous foibles you attribute to Filipinos. But I only wish you could be as witty as H.L. Mencken in your misanthropy. Be careful pointing fingers at people and calling them perverts though. It’s most unseemly and self-describing of you.
Having said that, yes, I agree we need a jury system.
Atty. Ben,
I wish you were here and ‘working’ our courts. You say I am wrong by asserting that Bolante defrauded the farmers.I don’t mean he did it single-handly.That entire DA is run like a syndicate. But If I ever get entangled in some crime, beyond holding views contrary to the Mafia now weildingly power, I’d want you to be my lawyer, that’s if you will take me pro bono :)
i don’t have to be a “fratman” to know that rotary, opus dei, or jaycee are legitimate organizations not designed for mutual protection of their accused members from prosecution. i’ve been a frat member in college and member of a couple of organizations you referred to, but what relevance has that in this discussion?
for purposes of criminal prosecution, public opinion is just as good as your private opinion. both cannot convict or sentence an accused wrongdoer. nor are they a reliable trier of facts because they are not subject to the same rules of truth-seeking, to which courts are subject to.
as to your bad experience in law practice in the philippines, tough luck. i know many people are complaining like you but what are they gonna do about it?
we are doing something about it ben, we are blogging, but don’t be a court apologist by invoking the rule of law in an ideal environment where we do not have such ideal environment.
public vigilance as a deterrrence towards corruption and government betrayal of public trust, whether that be of executive, the court or congress. and while public vigilance would not have the instrumentalities of being able to put one in jail, it has, nonetheless the capacity of deterring repeat offenses and of empowering the masses that their opinion matters in keeping abuse of power at bay.
ben,
i mentionend FG being a rotarian and Bolante being a rotarian. the former was Bolante’s sponsor to DA. The perception is that Bolante distributed the funds to party politicians at election time, obviously giving color to claim that the distribution was ordered by the higher-ups to make their party members win.
if Bolante is charge in court for that scam and his job sponsor for this cabinet post a fellow rotarian, does not the feeling of “camaraderie” and fraternity brod syndrome will work in favor of Bolante and at the expense of the people?
that is where being a rotarian becomes relevant.
but it’s all perceptions and speculations, jcc. i think we pinoys (especially lawyers who should know better) should try to overcome this penchant for(to use your term in another post) “panghuhusga”, or concluding guilt by association. see, by saying what you said about rotarians, you have put every member of that great organization in a bad light.
please distinguish. rotarians protecting other rotarians in hot water put themselves in a bad light, but other rotarians who are not in a position to help out are not placed in a bad light. here Bolante whose sponsor in his cabinet post was FG, a fellow rotarian and the former had distributed funds for partymates using fertilizer funds for the farmers. does not need a genius to figure out that guilt by association may come into play.
but other rotarians who was never bolante’s sponsor to his cabinet post and are not rooting for bolante’s adventure but instead are appaled by what he did, from my standpoint, remain honorable.
jcc, i’m no genius but, unlike you, i don’t believe in guilt by association.
and oh, by the way, jcc, please call me bencard. benigno may not like the idea of him being confused with me.
i am sorry ben, my fault. i should say that FG might be guilty by direct participation. but the trouble is, bolante may not have his day in court and therefore you were correct in saying that we have tried bolante and FG by publicity.
where, as i said, the instrumentality incharge of the prosecution of criminals appears beholden to power, there is that tendency to bring the case before the bar of public opinion.
again we speak of an unideal system of government where the institutions are weak and are occupied by knaves and scoundrels.
bencard,
we’re the only one discussing the fine legal nuances aside from Abe and DJB. NO way bloggers would mistake ben to Benign0. But i shall be obliged.
Gentlemen,
It helps to understand that blogging is mainly about changing and improving yourself. Unless it helps you to do that, you cannot expect for there to be an effect on others.