TIT FOR TAT

Hopping from one blog to another, I visited MLQ3’s blog and participated in the lively exchange of ideas among bloggers and commenters alike.  As expected, the discussion centered on GMA with the usual pro and anti sentiments being displayed in the comment threads. 

To cut the story short, there is one commenter who goes by the alias Bencard.  He stirs up my adrenalin (or quite frankly, he really gets my goat) whenever I get to read his favorable observations on GMA and her policies.  Now, there’s basically nothing wrong with siding for or against a particular issue but when it comes to the illegal occupant in Malacañang, I could not help but be extremely passionate about it.  The injustice this administration has inflicted upon us is simply too much to bear and to read an insensitive comment from a “dual citizen residing in the U.S. but keeping himself abreast of what is happening in the land of his birth” is plainly adding insult to injury.  You may not agree with me but praising and defending a bogus President means that you are tolerating all the lying, cheating and stealing she has been known to commit since coming to power in 2001. 

Bencard started his rant with this entry: 

So what else is new MLQ3? Since when have you been “optimistic” about the President? I don’t think it is necessary time and again for her to assure you , or anyone, that her term expires in 2010. It is in the Constitution, ain’t it? Why is it always an issue with you people? Is it all up to her? I think we should cease acting like juveniles and grow up for our own sake. 

Beancurd (a sarcastic sounding namesake of Bencard) reacted: 

I believe Bencard also said those lines (It is in the Constitution, isn’t it?) back in the 70’s and when Marcos chagned the constitution, well Bencard can always say “it is in the Constitution, isn’t it?”.
And he (or she?) is right, mlq3. From his excellent reasoning, Gloria is the President, therefore she respects the constitution and the rule of law. Thus, everything she does is constitutional and legal. Man, you are awesome! 

Bencard replied, saying: 

Beancurd, the Constitution does not say that Justice Reynato Puno is the Chief Justice, Manuel Villar is the Senate President or Jose de Venecia is the Speaker of the House of Representatives either, does it?

No, Beancurd, I am not an ofw. I am a dual citizen residing in the U.S. but keeping myself abreast of what is happening in the land of my birth. 

To which I, with the use of sarcasm, interrupted: 

“I think we should cease acting like juveniles and grow up for our own sake.”

-EHEM.. 

“I don’t think it is necessary time and again for her to assure you , or anyone, that her term expires in 2010. It is in the Constitution, ain’t it? Why is it always an issue with you people? Is it all up to her?”

-COUGH. COUGH. 

“She is our President because our laws and the Constitution say she is, not you, mlq3 or cvj.”

-She is our president because first, Garci and the Abalos Comelec said so; second, because the house of representathieves said so; and third, because esperon said so.

The Constitution and the laws apply only to legitimately elected presidents. It does not legitimize a bogus presidency. 

Supremo, another commenter, inserted this bit of advice on how to make the most of our celebration of Independence Day: 

I suggest instead giving GMA a 21 middle finger salute on every national occasion like Independence Day. She might get the drift after a while. 

Bencard, probably pissed off by the onslaught of negative feedback resulting from his defense of GMA, turned his ire on me by posting this: 

the problem, bystander, is that you are not a duly-constituted judge with real power to give effect to your anti-GMA judgment. You are just a puny blogger like everyone else here. There is a process - either follow it or just shut up. Otherwise you can take the law into your own hands at your peril. 

Take note that he was the first one to name-call and make insulting remarks against people who stubbornly refuse to believe his antics.  And in response to his belittling my persona, I answered back with equal intensity, again using sarcasm as my weapon of choice: 

“the problem, bystander, is that you are not a duly-constituted judge with…”

-i’d rather be a puny blogger than a puny apologist whose puny defense for a puny president is full of puny arguments. 

“There is a process - either follow it or just shut up. Otherwise you can take the law into your own hands at your peril.”

-I won’t shut up for so long as there are people like you who won’t. 

“I suggest instead giving GMA a 21 middle finger salute on every national occasion like Independence Day. She might get the drift after a while.”

-The suggestion is well-taken. The apologist equally deserves to be given a 21 middle finger salute.

“I am a dual citizen residing in the U.S. but keeping myself abreast of what is happening in the land of my birth.”

-To keep himself abreast with what is happening in the land of his birth, he watches news aired by sequestered TV stations like NBN4 and RPN9 and reads online news from the manila standard and the manila bulletin. Afterwards, he visits manolo’s blog and spreads the lies he himself has come to believe as gospel truth. 

Supremo, on the other hand, was on the offensive and said rather bluntly: 

My puny middle finger goes to bencard for this statement. 

Bencard further heats up.  He said: 

you know what i think guys? i think the single reason the hate- Gloria club cannot muster enough support for its cause (to get PGMA by means fair or foul)is that it cannot try to make a point without being obnoxious. it has the annoying habit of shooting the messenger for the message he bears, obviously unsure of its capacity to challenge the message.

no wonder the GMA haters always had to resort to name calling, insults, derision (sheepish laughter as from someone who slipped on a banana peel), mockery, gloating, attempted satire that doesn’t and cannot work, fighting words, and, sometimes, obscenities that could only result from ill-breeding. 

But I’m not the type of guy who easily backs down especially from someone who cannot live up to his moral standards.  So I answered back, thus: 

again, look who’s talking. this dual citizen sounds as if he is the aggrieved party, yet he was the first one to resort to insult anti-gma commenters as puny bloggers. look at the old man in the mirror.

and as to his conceited claim that those who contradict his views “are unsure of their capacity to challenge his message”, the comment threads speak for themselves. take that from someone who merely parrots what abalos et. al have in mind with respect to the “failure of elections” in maguindanao. motherhood statements are not enough to defend the indefensible. 

MLQ3 did not join the fray.  He however reminded everyone to go easy on Bencard through this statement: 

a note on bencard: we should give him his due as a faithful reader and participant in this blog, no matter the odds. the same way i asked for consideration for cat, bencard deserves ours. i’m sure he’s a man of personal integrity. 

Wait.  MLQ3 failed to observe that what earned Bencard a lot of flak was his arrogance and high-handedness in dealing with other people’s views and opinions.  In response, I said: 

Tit for tat lang manolo. No one ever deprived him of his due as a participant in your blog. We were merely reacting to what we think are fallacious statements in his rabid defense of GMA. The use of sarcasm is one. Your “note on bencard” is quite unfair to begin with. You’re trying to imply that we are the ones bullying him. 

Ay Naku has a similar take on the issue:    

Of course. But he should be able to take as much as he gives. He calls people here puny and idiots and tells them to shut up all the time, especially when he’s losing an argument. The man from the US of A is not above name-calling himself; in fact a lot of times he starts it. 

Yes, Ay naku.  You hit the nail right on its head. 

WHO’S NEXT?

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)

ONCE UPON A TIME

. . .when Raul Gonzalez was still a repentant man. xxx

xxx

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

-oOo-

ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR,

xxxxxxxxxxxxx.Petitioner,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxG. R. Nos. 79690-707
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxApril 7, 1993
xxxxxx-versus-

HON. SANDIGANBAYAN
and HON. RAUL M. GONZALES,
claiming to be and acting as
Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under
the 1987 Constitution,
xxxxxxxxxxxRespondents.
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /

ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR,
xxxxxxxxxxxxx.Petitioner,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxG. R. No. 80578
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxApril 7, 1993
xxxxxx-versus-

xxx

xxx

HON. RAUL M. GONZALES,

claiming to be and acting

as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman

under the 1987 Constitution,

xxxxxxxxxxxxRespondent.

X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /

xxx

R E S O L U T I O N

CAMPOS, JR., J.:

xxx

In October, 1988, We suspended respondent Raul M. Gonzales from the practice of law for an indefinite period. In denying his Motion for Reconsideration, We said that “the indefiniteness of the respondent’s suspension, far from being ‘cruel’ or ‘degrading’ or ‘inhuman’ has the effect of placing, as it were, the key to the restoration of his rights and privileges as a lawyer in his own hands. That sanction has the effect of giving respondent the chance to purge himself in his own good time of his contempt and misconduct by acknowledging such misconduct, exhibiting appropriate repentance and demonstrating his willingness and capacity to live up to the exacting standards of conduct rightly demanded from every member of the bar and the officer of the courts.”

xxx

After more than four [4] years from his suspension, on January 11, 1993 to be exact, respondent Raul M. Gonzales filed an ex-parte Motion to lift his suspension from the practice of law, alleging the following:

xxx

1. that respondent gave free legal aid services to the poor and needy of Zambales and Iloilo, by paying lawyers to do the same as he could not personally represent said clients by reason of his suspension;

xxx

2. that during his years of suspension, he has pursued civic work, especially for the poor and displaced people in Zambales, during the height of Mt. Pinatubo eruption;

xxx

3. that he had participated in the Third International Dialog on the Transition to Global Society, at Landegg Academy in Wienacht, Switzerland and brought honor to the country by delivering a paper entitled, “The Meaning of Justice” cited by Mr. Justice Anthony Kennedy of the US Supreme Court as “one of the better papers presented and discussed at the conference”;

xxx

4. that respondent has a long record in the service of human rights and the rule of law, especially during the Martial Law years;

xxx

5. respondent pleads for his reinstatement to the practice of law because his suspension for 51 months has been the longest in Philippine legal annals;

xxx

6. respondent states his profound regrets for the inconvenience which he has caused to the Court and to some of its members but he wishes to assure that he did not act with malice after thought, much less, with a desire to inflict harm on the tribunal;

xxx

7. respondent reiterates very sincerely his respect to the institution which is the Supreme Court as he reiterates his oath to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well as to the Courts and to the clients and finally restating his fealty to the institution which is the Supreme Court which he has always respected as the ultimate bulwark of freedom, of the Rule of Law, of human rights and of equity and justice.

xxx

In Resolution of the Court En Banc dated February 9, 1993, We ordered petitioner Zaldivar to file his Comment. Up to the present time, however, or after the lapse of the ten [10] day period within which to file the same, We have not yet received the Comment of petitioner.

xxx

The Chief Justice, who was one of the Members of the Court contemned by the respondent, suggests that We look benignly on the motion. We agree that this is not a court of vengeance but of justice. The respondent’s contrition, so noticeably absent in his earlier pleadings, has washed clean the offense of his disrespect. His remorse has softened his arrogance and made up for his misconduct.

xxx

We believe that respondent Raul M. Gonzales’ suspension from the practice of law for more than four [4] years has given him ample time and opportunity to amend his erring ways, rehabilitate himself, and thus, prove himself worthy once again to enjoy the privileges of membership of the Bar.

xxx

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

xxx

For the proper guidance of respondent Raul M. Gonzales, We reiterate a time-honored rule that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of legal profession, are the conditions required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession, has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. This authority to discipline its members is not only a right, but a bounden duty as well. The Court cannot, and will not, tolerate any outbursts from its members without running the risk of disorder, chaos and anarchy in the administration of justice. That is why respect and fidelity to the Court is demanded of its members “not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.”

xxx

Like the prodigal son in the Biblical story, respondent Raul M. Gonzales comes before Us repentant. The passage of years has indeed the effect of making people wiser and humbler, as it has to respondent Raul M. Gonzales. We are convinced of his sincerity to “reiterate his oath to conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion; and to restate his fealty to the institution which is the Supreme Court”.

xxx

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED in that the suspension of respondent Raul M. Gonzales from the practice of law is hereby LIFTED. This resolution is immediately executory.

xxx

SO ORDERED.

xxx

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur.

(courtesy of Chan Robles Virtual Law Library)

KNOWING THE LAW VS. KNOWING THE JUDGE

It is unfortunate that there are lawyers who practice their profession as though the only important thing is to “win at all costs”. In their desperation to prove to all and sundry that they have what it takes to win even the most difficult of cases, they resort to all kinds of machinations — legal and illegal — with the end in view of turning the tide in their favor.

As these unscrupulous lawyers would often say, there are “good” lawyers and “brilliant” lawyers. A good lawyer, they say, is one who knows his law, adequately prepares for his assigned case and acts according to the rudiments of fair play. A brilliant lawyer, on the other hand, need not study his case. All it takes is for him to “know” the judge! Nah, I don’t have to elaborate what “knowing the judge” means. You know what I’m talking about. It’s too obvious to even merit a discussion.

But graft and corruption is not a one-way street. It takes two to tango. Equally condemnable are the clients of these lawyers who will stop at nothing just to obtain a favorable ruling from conniving magistrates — hoodlums in robes — as former President Erap used to describe them. As to how widespread this culture of corruption has become, I have no idea. As to whether this lamentable practice really does exist, probably. We should not, however, lose faith in our justice system. Flawed as it may seem, it’s the only one we have. And I laud the efforts of our Justices who work tirelessly hard to implement vital judicial reforms.

By the way, I took it upon myself to reproduce in toto the canons under the Code of Professional Responsibility which all “good” (in contrast to a “brilliant”) lawyers cannot simply take for granted. Otherwise, they might run the risk of losing their privileged status as members of the Bar in good standing.

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROFESSION.

CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.

CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.

CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.

CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.

CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS PROFESSION.

CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.

CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.

CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATION IS TERMINATED.

CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.