ShareThis
by Rodel Rodis
May 2, 2011
On the day of the execution of the three Filipino drug mules by the Chinese government, Philippine talk radio was abuzz with callers decrying the government’s failure to save them while denouncing the drug syndicates that preyed on them. But on Ramon Tulfo’s popular talk show on DZIQ Radyo Inquirer, the question puzzling callers was what happens to Chinese nationals arrested in the Philippines for drug trafficking.
One anonymous caller, who identified himself as an employee of the Philippine Court of Appeals, answered the question. As Tulfo recounted the following day in his On Target column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the caller said: “The Chinese would be acquitted by the appellate court. In fact, many Chinese serving time at the National Penitentiary have been released after they were acquitted by the Court of Appeals.”
In other words, as Tulfo explained in his column, “if you get convicted by the lower court for drug pushing or trafficking in this country, don’t despair because the appellate court will set you free for the right price.”
Retired Court of Appeals Associate Justice Hilarion Aquino agreed that corruption is prevalent in the judiciary but asserted that most of the time it starts with lawyers and not with judges and magistrates. “The lawyers are the corruptor, while the judges are the corrupted,” Aquino explained.
But former Solicitor-General Frank Chavez of Operation Clean Hands responded that “no matter how corrupt the lawyer is, if the judge will not participate, then there’s no corruption. So it takes two to tango.”
Perhaps defendants like Chinese drug traffickers are just lucky that Philippine judges are meticulously concerned about protecting their rights and ensuring that Philippine police authorities follow the law to the letter in every search or arrest warrant they obtain or else the charges will be dismissed.
Sen. Ping Lacson can certainly thank his lucky stars that the Court of Appeals saw the logic of his argument that the witness who heard him issue the order to abduct and execute Salvador Dacer was “incredible” because he only heard about Dacer’s actual abduction after it had already occurred. Mafia bosses in the US are not so fortunate because US courts will not dismiss arrest warrants based on the testimony of witnesses who heard the bosses issue the rub out orders even if they only learned of the actual executions after they had already occurred.
San Miguel Corp. Chairman Danding Cojuangco was also fortunate that the only eight people in the Philippines who believe he was not a favored crony of Pres. Ferdinand Marcos happened to be justices of the Philippine Supreme Court. What are the odds?
But the luckiest Marcos crony of all is Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez (Imelda’s younger brother) who served simultaneously as Leyte Governor and Philippine Ambassador to the US under Marcos.
According to the Philippine Commission on Good Government (PCGG), while Marcos was in power, Kokoy acquired a significant ownership interest in at least 60 Philippine corporations including Benguet Consolidated Mining Corp. When Marcos was overthrown, Kokoy left the Philippines as well.
After 14 years of self-exile, Kokoy returned to the Philippines in 2000. Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo then filed 23 criminal cases against him for failing to file his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN) from 1962 to 1985. Kokoy’s lawyers challenged the filing of the cases by arguing that they were filed past the statute of limitations for those offenses. When this argument was denied by the lower courts, the issue was raised to the Supreme Court.
A 3-member panel of the Supreme Court led by Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago unanimously rejected Kokoy’s argument and ruled that the issue of the prescription period “must be settled in a full-blown trial”. The Ombudsman then prepared to bring the case against Kokoy to trial.
But barely ten months later, without any change in circumstance, fact or argument, the same three SC justices, acting on Kokoy’s Motion for Reconsideration, reversed themselves completely and ruled that the charges against Kokoy were barred by the statute of limitations.
When the majority of the Court backed the reversed decision, Justice Antonio Carpio wrote a furious dissent. “The majority opinion allows the prescriptive period to run during petitioner’s absence from this jurisdiction from 1986 to April 2000 or for a period of nearly fourteen years. I cannot subscribe to such a view.” Why? Because the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines provides that the term of prescription “should not run when the offender is absent from the Philippines,” he explained.
“To allow an accused to prevent his prosecution by simply leaving this jurisdiction” Carpio wrote, “unjustifiably tilts the balance of criminal justice in favor of the accused to the detriment of the State’s ability to investigate and prosecute crimes. In this age of cheap and accessible global travel, this Court should not encourage individuals facing investigation or prosecution for violation of special laws to leave Philippine jurisdiction to sit-out abroad the prescriptive period.”
Thanks to the Kokoy decision of the Supreme Court, anyone accused of a crime in the Philippines can just leave the country and wait until the statute of limitations has run and then return free of any criminal charges.
In 2008, the Philippine Supreme Court conducted an investigation after Newsbreak reported that a staff member of Justice Ynares-Santiago “accidentally opened a box delivered to their office, meant for her boss – and found it full of cash.” The Supreme Court investigation was not about who sent the box filled with cash to the justice but about who leaked the news to the press.
Apparently, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, there is nothing wrong or unusual about justices receiving boxes filled with cash.
They’re just lucky.
(Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or mail them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call 415.334.7800).
teen years. I cannot subscribe to such a view.” Why? Because the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines provides that the term of prescription “should not run when the offender is absent from the Philippines,” he explained.
“To allow an accused to prevent his prosecution by simply leaving this jurisdiction” Carpio wrote, “unjustifiably tilts the balance of criminal justice in favor of the accused to the detriment of the State’s ability to investigate and prosecute crimes. In this age of cheap and accessible global travel, this Court should not encourage individuals facing investigation or prosecution for violation of special laws to leave Philippine jurisdiction to sit-out abroad the prescriptive period.”
Thanks to the Kokoy decision of the Supreme Court, anyone accused of a crime in the Philippines can just leave the country and wait until the statute of limitations has run and then return free of any criminal charges.
In 2008, the Philippine Supreme Court conducted an investigation after Newsbreak reported that a staff member of Justice Ynares-Santiago “accidentally opened a box delivered to their office, meant for her boss – and found it full of cash.” The Supreme Court investigation was not about who sent the box filled with cash to the justice but about who leaked the news to the press. Apparently, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, there is nothing wrong or unusual about justices receiving boxes filled with cash.
They’re just lucky.
(Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or mail them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call 415.334.7800).