WHO’S NEXT?

17 09 2006

Is the filing of a libel suit by the husband of the most powerful woman in the country certain to produce a conviction?

From a legal standpoint, of course not. The winnability of a case certainly depends on the evidence at hand and how a court appreciates the same.

But if the same question is answered within the context of the current scheme of things, then regrettably, my hesitant answer would have to be yes. It however depends on the peculiarities of the situation, subject to how the judge handles the intense “pressures” that go along with having to resolve a sensitive case involving influential public figures. This, I think, is what gives the chills to those who might be minded to criticize — constructively or destructively — the First Gentleman.

As far as I can recall, these are the people whom Mike Arroyo has filed libel cases against since his wife came to power allegedly via the Hello Garci route:

1. Jake Macasaet and Rosario T. Galang of Malaya
2. Former Senator Francisco “Kit” Tatad
3. Former Solicitor General Frank Chavez
4. Lito Banayo of Malaya, who was formerly with the Daily Tribune
5. Ninez Cacho-Olivares of the Daily Tribune and her editorial staff
6. William Esposo of the Inquirer
7. Senator Jinggoy Estrada
8. Rep. Alan Peter Cayetano
9. Inquirer Columnist Ramon Tulfo
10. Raffy Tulfo
11. Erwin Tulfo
12. Editorial Board of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and its sister publication, Bandera

Ellen Tordesillas has the complete list (43 journalists as of the latest count).

Lito Banayo, through Ellen Tordesillas’ blog, has an interesting account of what it was like to be charged with libel by no less than the First Gentleman:

“On the morning of Monday, August 7, 2006, the premises of the City Hall of Manila swarmed with uniformed police and Presidential Security Guards along with bomb sniffing dogs. No less than Gen. Bulaong was in the immediate area of Branch 49 at the 5th floor, along with some six uniformed police officers, two or three of them with the rank of colonel. The PSG and/or the police effectively barred media (who were attracted by the unusual display of force) from entering the sala of the judge.

Without any written pre-trial order signed by both parties, the presiding judge ordered the presentation of the first prosecution witness on the same day, thereby violating Sections 2 and 4 of Rule 118 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

The judge arbitrarily, capriciously and despotically ordered the case to proceed to trial moments after she terminated the pre-trial conference. During the testimony of the First Gentleman, Atty. Arroyo, she repeatedly denied motions of the lawyer for the defense in a manner so high-handed, punctuated with unabated and unnecessary shouting.

After the one-hour direct examination of the private complainant, the judge wanted to force the defense counsel to cross-examine the private complainant immediately, without the benefit of time to confer with the stenographic notes of the lengthy testimony. Thereafter, she directed continuation of the trial the following day, Tuesday, August 8, at 2:00 p.m. She directed the court stenographer to give the transcript to the affected parties the same afternoon.

By 1:15 p.m. of Tuesday, August 8, the stenographer had completed transcribing only 62 pages of the notes, a little more than half of the testimony of the previous day. Finding the actions inside the courtroom the day before as being “an utter display of partiality and high-handedness,” Banayo and his counsel, Atty. Johnmuel Romano Mendoza, filed a motion to inhibit the presiding judge. Not surprisingly Judge Alarcon-Vergara promptly started the hearing at 2:00 p.m., and immediately denied the Motion to Inhibit.

In tones livid with anger, she peremptorily disputed the charge of partiality and directed the defense counsel to cross-examine Atty. Arroyo. Mendoza refused and begged leave of court. Banayo, however, was directed by the judge to remain. Whereupon, she appointed a counsel de oficio.

Inside the court was Atty. Humberto Basco, a lawyer who accompanied his friend Rogelio de la Paz, a friend of Banayo who went there to lend moral support. Both were former councilors of Manila who were able to enter the court only because they arrived at the same time that the First Gentleman and his party, which again included Gen. Bulaong and assorted police and PSGs.

Judge Vergara immediately appointed the unwitting and unwilling Basco to be de oficio lawyer. Banayo said he found what was happening surreal and declared that he does not agree to be represented by a lawyer who had virtually no knowledge of the case. But Alarcon-Vergara persisted. Banayo related that at one point, no less than the First Gentleman needled Basco to accept the appointment as counsel de oficio, saying “Magaling ka namang abogado, e.”

When Banayo asked for a postponement of the trial so he could be properly represented, the judge again denied the motion, and forced Basco to proceed with cross-examining the second witness, the First Gentleman’s private prosecutor, Atty. Ruy Rondain. Several times, Arroyo’s lawyer reminded the judge that his client “was a busy man” which was duly noted because she insisted that she wanted to finish the case with dispatch.”

If I were Lito Banayo, I would file administrative charges against her for deliberately failing to exercise the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Her bias showed when she forced the newly-appointed counsel de oficio, Atty. Basco, to cross-examine the 2nd witness for the prosecution without affording the said lawyer sufficient time to confer with his client. This is tantamount to a violation of Mr. Banayo’s constitutional right to have competent and independent counsel of his own choice. For the judge to dispense with the rules merely because Mike Arroyo is a “busy man” smacks of manifest partiality and evident bad faith.

With this apparent propensity of the First Gentleman to file libel cases against anyone who catches his ire, the question is asked - WHO’S NEXT?

To those who do not yet know what LIBEL means, this article by the Law Professor might help.

(photo above courtesy of theseoultimes.com)


Actions

Information

9 responses to “WHO’S NEXT?”

17 09 2006
HILLBLOGGER & Hillblogger2 (21:15:24) :

Hello Erwin,

Thank you for dropping by over my blog.

Yeah, I’m afraid we, the rather reasonable folks in this troubled spectrum are being pushed around to become unreasonable.

By the way, Hillblogger 2 is a kind of personal diary.

I invite you to sort of share my family life in pictures and some “stories”.

I’ve actually just started it.

http://www.hillblogger2.blogspot.com/

or at http://hillblogger2.blogspot.com/2006/09/fun-on-beach-in-porspoder.html

Take care!

17 09 2006
The Bystander (21:26:30) :

Thanks for the info anna. I’m going to visit your other blog.

By the way, that was an excellent post you got there. I couldn’t have said it any better.

18 09 2006
schumey (17:44:06) :

Hi Erwin. If Mike is a busy man, so are we. Justice should be blind and the judge should be kicked out. She had no business making excuses for Mike. If ordinary folks are made ot wait for justice, let him wait as well.

18 09 2006
The Bystander (17:59:44) :

That’s the sad reality that sometimes we have to accept in this unfair society. But as an agent of the law, I am duty bound to keep the faith. And I still could fairly say that the number of honest and sincere judges far outweigh the number of those who aren’t.

18 09 2006
HILLBLOGGER & Hillblogger2 (21:11:54) :

Hi Erwin,

I agree with you that the honest and sincere judges outweigh the number of those who are dishonest.

There are many lawyers and law offices also in Pinas whose standard of morality is very high.

To give you an example: A few years ago, I recommended the Tanada Law Offices to a European business that wanted to do a JV in Pinas. The business would inevitably lead to a govt contract if the JV could win the bid; the legalm retainers’ fee would have been well, very, very good but the Tanada Law Offices refused to be retained on the ground that one of their major partners was or still is a member of the legislature and feared that even if the proposed JV was above board, there could be questions and doubts, hence they didn’t want the retainer.

I was disappointed because I believe and with reason that the Tanada Law Offices are straight talkers and would have been good for the European business in question but the Tanadas were right, ethics wise, there might be a conflict of interest.

I had recommended another law office which accepted. Well, the JV was formed but their bid lost - the European partners were not prepared to go into the “corrupt” intricacies required of the bidders. I will not say which department issued the bid but suffice to say that the Europeans backed out because they were not prepared to go into corrupt corporate practices - the OECD rules were not to be taken lightly.

Anyway, I know for a fact that the winning bidder didn’t land the business either because at the end of the day, the RP department in question dumped the proposed project, just too hot to handle!

18 09 2006
The Bystander (22:02:55) :

Ya, there are a lot of law offices/firms in the country that still adhere to ethical principles mandated by our “Code of Professional Responsibility”. Indeed, Canon 2 thereof states: A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.

As regards the bidding process, what I know of is the so-called two-envelope, two-stage system. A bidder’s first envelope (Eligibility Envelope) is meant to establish its eligibility to bid and its qualifications and capacity to perform the contract if its bid was accepted, while the second envelope would be the Bid Envelope itself.

I could only surmise why the winning bidder was not eventually awarded the government contract.

18 09 2006
HILLBLOGGER & Hillblogger2 (23:14:50) :

By the way, Erwin, I wonder if Lito Banayo is aware that he could file a counter-charge “against her for deliberately failing to exercise the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.”

That will be just sumpthin, eh?

19 09 2006
The Bystander (01:12:33) :

With a highly competent lawyer that Mr. Banayo has, I presume he is aware that he could file an administrative case for “manifest partiality” or “gross ignorance of the law” against the alleged erring judge before the Office of the Court Administrator. But at the end of the day, it would still be his decision whether to file a case or not. Just like doctors, lawyers have different strategies on how to effectively address a “problem”.

2 05 2007
josh (21:51:56) :

Great blog man! Keep up the good work!

Leave a comment

You can use these tags : <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>