INSTANT JUSTICE

I nearly fell off my seat when I chanced upon an article published some two weeks ago with this caption: “Vigilantes should be commended”. At first, I thought the author was merely a namesake of Bobby Nalzaro, that radio personality known for his “no nonsense” remarks against corrupt local government officials. But when it became clear that the column indeed belonged to him, I wasted no time expressing my opposition because I could not believe that such a declaration could come from a long-time broadcast and print journalist.

I cannot, in conscience, agree to Mr. Nalzaro’s pronouncement that these vigilantes should be “commended” instead of being condemned. He should be the last person to glorify these cold-blooded killers masquerading as heroes. His statement not only treads on dangerous grounds but likewise reveals a biased view against those publicly perceived as “criminals”. Allow me to remind him a thing or two on a number of fallacies snorted out in his November 12, 2005 article:

1. “Yes, there were killings, but consider those who were killed. Most of them were notorious elements that terrorized people through their nefarious activities.” — I think Mr. Nalzaro understands the meaning of the constitutional presumption of innocence and the prohibition on the use of excessive punishment that I need not discuss them further. Those slaughtered were either small-time criminals who have already served their sentences in jail or mere suspects whose innocence must be presumed until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. To give credence to Mr. Nalzaro’s contention would be like suggesting that we abolish all the law enforcement agencies, or to put it more bluntly, the pillars of the justice system and make him the “czar” of this vigilante group. From all indications, he seems so sure that all those murdered were hardened criminals.

Does he have sufficient evidence to support this sweeping generalization? If not, then he better reconsider his position because it does not speak well of the kind of journalism he peddles in a respected newspaper such as SunStar. He could have been more circumspect considering the possible influence his opinion could wield upon the mindset of potential criminals or worse, such a statement could be interpreted as a sign of approval for these state-sponsored assasins to continue their killing spree.

Nevertheless, I would like to ask Mr. Nalzaro this hypothetical, albeit practical question: What if any of his relatives is accused of committing crimes, and, using his standard of justice as barometer, qualifies for the death warrant, will he allow such relative of his to be summarily executed without the benefit of judicial trial? Your guess is as good as mine.

2. “We should only be alarmed if those killed are people with good standing in the community, like businessmen.” — Was Mr. Nalzaro absent when his professor explained about due process and equal protection of the laws? The law does not make a distinction whether one is rich or poor, innocent or guilty, privileged or deprived. For all we know, there are probably more smugglers and drug lords camouflaged as businessmen and more crooks and rapists disguised as mayors than there are snatchers and swindlers in the streets of Cebu.

3. “They had a role in the reduction of criminality in the city.” — These vigilantes did not reduce the number of crimes, they increased the list of unresolved murders to 103, allegedly in connivance and with the blessings of public officials and hoodlums in uniforms.

Instead of praising these killers for their dastardly acts, Mr. Nalzaro should focus his tirades on the inept and corrupt policemen who have been remiss in their duty to maintain peace and order in the “Queen City of the South”.