Hole of Justice: Mejorada's Evidence

Hole of Justice: Mejorada's Evidence: Hole of Justice by Peter G. Jimenea Mejorada’s Evidence is Strong Senate Pres. Franklin Drilon’s appearance at the Senate Blue ...

Hole of Justice: Mejorada's Evidence

Hole of Justice: Mejorada's Evidence: Hole of Justice by Peter G. Jimenea Mejorada’s Evidence is Strong Senate Pres. Franklin Drilon’s appearance at the Senate Blue ...

Mejorada's Evidence

Hole of Justice

by Peter G. Jimenea

Mejorada’s Evidence is Strong

Senate Pres. Franklin Drilon’s appearance at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee during the grilling of Manuel “Boy” Mejorada by senator-colleagues has thus far shown he is a man, hinting grim possibilities for the latter’s ICC case to prosper. Out there he shows confidence despite his badly beaten looks

What’s more, he’s been muttering that his supporters must gird for war against his accuser, from which they did. Thus, despite the imperfection their will was done. Having the inherent right to do so, Mejorada was declared a “persona non grata” by the Iloilo City Council.

But cui bono?  For whose benefit? For what good? Forwhat purpose? Mejorada could only laugh to the ears. He is not a member of a foreign diplomatic mission in this country which could be deprived of the immunity provisions cited in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, under Art. 41 & 42.

Mejorada is a resident-taxpayer of the city and such declaration could not drive him out without the proper Court Order. Beside which, the resolution approved by the city council declaring him persona non grata or “an unwelcomed person” is  a mere recommendation.

The law says; simplex commendatio non obligar – mere recommendation is not binding. Whether he takes it as an honor or humiliation, popularity or notoriety, only Mejorada can disclose. But what’s next after the declaration? This man has a story that everytime he sneezes, everybody catches flu!

But he does not have the monopoly of a recurring story.  Story that neither stop the coming in nor getting out of the court because of recklessness committed by public officials. They are dragged into controversies because of their temerity to commit acts contra bonos mores- contrary to sound established practice!

Mejorada has waterloo too. Deliberate or not, he failed to anticipate the killing question raised by Sen. Sonny Angara whether he has the evidence to prove his allegations. After he said no, Sen. Drilon nearly jumps to the floor to dance due to over excitement. In chess parlance, his accuser has committed a big blunder.

Funny indeed, Mejorada’s lawyer failed to intercede to save him. The question raised by Sen. Angara turned the flow of the ongoing committee investigation in favor of Sen. Drilon. This is what his supporters claim hinted at. But the probe is not in aid of legislation but seems in aid of grandstanding.

Isn’t it grandstanding of a senator to ask for evidence when after all, he cannot even file a case in Court? Had Mejorada answered that the evidence is the ICC itself, that could drive the supporters of Sen. Drilon in the brink of insanity. But an inquiry where the senators act as both prosecutors and judges is not in aid of legislation but Zarsuela in itself.

Look, a mere unsigned letter of complaint sent to the Office of the Ombudsman against public officials involved in corrupt practices act can propel investigation of that office to ferret out the truth. But the witness-Mejorada who went out of his cave in going to the senate to stand as complainant is not needed by humble senators.

Instead, they want evidence when it is their prime duty to get out of their hole and investigate the truthfulness of the complaint about the alleged overpriced in government projects. If not, they have all the resources to create or assign a group to do the job for them. But why don’t they?

It looks like some of our senators have heads so hollow you can easily pass the Iloilo Convention Center through it. Why don’t they first amend their role in the Blue Ribbon Committee to include the Rules of Court on Evidence? What’s the use of evidence to be presented when they cannot even file a case in Court?

If the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee cannot even comply with one-tenth of the Ombudsman role in probing a case, then why don’t they resign and just go back to their work as senators of the Republic? Now, as I see it, Mejorada’s evidence here is strong, they are probing something in aid of grandstanding!

Hole of Justice: Persona Non Grata

Hole of Justice: Persona Non Grata: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea   Persona Non Grata   The Violation of R.A. 3019, the Anti-Graf and Corrupt Practices A...

Persona Non Grata

Hole of Justice

By Peter G. Jimenea

 

Persona Non Grata

 

The Violation of R.A. 3019, the Anti-Graf and Corrupt Practices Act plus Plunder case filed by Manuel “Boy” Mejorada against Senate President Franklin Drilon, earned for him the title “persona non grata” courtesy of the Iloilo City Council.

In diplomacy, the person declared persona non grata (Latin), literally means an "unwelcome person." It refers to a foreign person who enters and remained in a particular country who prohibits him to stay in that country by its government.

It is the most serious form of censure a country can apply to foreign diplomats, who are protected by diplomatic immunity from arrest and other normal kinds of prosecution while staying in that country which censured him. The case of Mejorada being a resident of the city is different.

Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Article 9, the receiving State may "at any time and without having to explain its decision" can declare any member of a diplomatic staff persona non grata or in case there are more, personae non gratae (plural).

A person or diplomatic staff declared is considered unacceptable and is usually recalled to his or her home country. Or if not, the State "may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the official mission” and may also lose his prescribed immunity.

The case of Mejorada falls under the non-diplomatic use. Referring to someone as persona non grata is to say that he or she is ostracized. Such person is for all intents and purposes culturally shunned. In police parlance one who “breaks the wall” of testifying against fellow officers.

Mejorada did not testify at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee against anybody but Drilon on issue of overprice or corruption, Unlike Ramon Bautista, a visiting comedian declared by the City of Davao a persona non grata for his “hipon joke” during Kadayawan  Festival on August 2014.

"There is a need to let the world know and those that employ Mr. Bautista that he is an extremely corrupt influence to the youth and his abusive behavior should not be tolerated," the resolution said. Such declaration of persona non grata against Mejorada is therefore, have different basis.

In which case, it is proper for Bautista to write his apology in Twitter because he offended the integrity of the people and the name of Davao as how the former mayor Sarah Duterte and the city council see it and Bautista has no evidence to save face!

Besides, Davao City has an Ordinance that prohibits all forms of discrimination based on sex, gender, identity, sexual orientation, race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin, and religious affiliations or beliefs. In Mejorada, no prohibition to expose corruption.

The City government through the city council has the right to express dislike to Mejorada for what he did by exposing the alleged overprice in the pet project of Sen. Drilon, the Iloilo Convention Center (ICC). But it is not dignity of the people and the city government. In fact, this is to protect the taxpayers’ money!

What is there to crow about the persona non grata declaration when Mejorada can still roam freely around the city that Drilon and wards are so proud of? Two senators, Serge Osmena and Miriam Defensor Santiago want the investigation to continue. The message is clear the Senate show must go on!

 

This writer agrees to the continuation of the investigation as it may even clear the name of the beleaguered senator. Anyway all these projects the senator has brought to the city are funded by the people’s money. So let us know how our money are being spent. So, the probe must go on ex merito justicias - in the interest of justice!

 

Hole of Justice: Dereliction of the Highest Order

Hole of Justice: Dereliction of the Highest Order: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea Dereliction of the Highest Order In 2004, a case for Violation of Sec. 3, Par (e) of RA 301...

Dereliction of the Highest Order

Hole of Justice

By Peter G. Jimenea

Dereliction of the Highest Order

In 2004, a case for Violation of Sec. 3, Par (e) of RA 3019, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was filed against then Iloilo City Mayor now Cong. Jerry P. Trenas, Melchor Tan, Edwin Bravo, Catherine Tingson and Alex Trinidad.

It stemmed from the failed P137M Housing Project of the Iloilo City government for the construction of 413 units of low-cost houses of City Hall employees. The project that started in 2001, ended in 2009 without even a unit completed.

But the case that has consumed the city for years seems not good for the Office of the Ombudsman. It took them five years from 2004 to 2009 to find probable cause against the above-named accused. What a lame excuse and weak defense to save face!

Probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that most likely than not,  a crime has been committed. It demands more than suspicion and requires less than evidence that would justify indictment. An unauthorized payment of P43M plus to the contractor is already embraced in RA 3019. So who are they kidding?

Finally, a year after a new Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales was appointed into office, she approved the resolution recommended by underlings of former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez a.k.a. Monalisa, for allowing the cases at her office to lie there and die there without seeing justice.

It reads en toto; “The Information accusing Jerry P. Trenas, Melchor Tan, Edwin Bravo, Catherine Tingson and Alex Trinidad for Violation of Sec. 3, Par (e) of RA 3019 as amended, for causing the release of the P43,807,733.33 for construction works of the ICHP in Pavia, Iloilo, despite reports that substandard materials were used in the project and defects, deficiencies and lapses in the work were noted, is HEREBY SET ASIDE.”

SEC. 16, ART. Iii of the 1987 Constitution reads: “All person shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial or administrative bodies. Also SEC. 16, ART. IV of the 1973 Constitution likewise guarantees the right of all persons to a speedy disposition of their cases.

Finding probable cause is not the reason or justification of the Ombudsman for delay. Different weights cannot be assigned to different reasons or justifications invoked by the State, such as failure of the accused to follow up their pending cases with the office of the Ombudsman.

As respondent, it is not the duty of the accused to follow up the prosecution of the case. Conversely, it was the responsibility of the Office of the Ombudsman to expedite the same with reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate to promptly act on all complaints lodged before it.

A defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial; the State has that duty, as well as the duty of insuring that the trial is consistent with due process. A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper or prejudice the defense should be weighted heavily against the State!

A cited petition to dismiss the case filed by respondent to the Sandiganbayan for unjust delay of the Ombudsman in probing his case for 5 years was docketed in “Rafael Coscolluela, Petitioner vs. the Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines. (G.R. No. 191411, July 15, 2013). The petition was GRANTED.

Delay is a two-edge sword. It is the government that must bear the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. What if the witnesses in the case have gone away without informing the litigants of the decision? Time passed makes it impossible for the government to carry its burden.

The Constitution and the Rules do not require impossibilities or extraordinary efforts, diligence or exertion from the courts or prosecutors, nor contemplate that such right shall deprive the State of the reasonable opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals.

As vanguard against corruption and bureaucracy, the Office of the Ombudsman must have a system of officials’ accountability to ensure that cases before it are resolved with reasonable dispatch to equally expose those who are responsible for its delays, as it ought to determine in this case.

Never had here been officials so derelict and irresolute in the performance of duty than the Ombudsman and her Deputies. The case that had consumed the city for ten (10) years should have been dismissed by now. But mind you, they must also be ready to face the consequence of this act!