Is A Compromise over Unjust Justice Possible?

The battlefield had been drawn, the war drums tapped; and swords unsheathed.  An epic battle between a corrupt Supreme Court with a very low public rating and a very popular president is unfolding.  You can predict the outcome.  But victory will come only if the jurists whose reputations had been tarnished by injudicious partisan rulings,  resign their posts and allow a new Court to convene and save the institution from moral paralysis.  This option had been done before, it can be done now!   

This route will provide a high moral road towards the Court’s redemption.  Anything less means the people had been vanquished again; and the corrupt bureaucracy, once more, had triumphed. 

To stave off this constitutional crisis, Senate President Juan P. Enrile proposed that the Church intervenes while his colleague, Senator Escudero proposed to convene the Executive-Legislative Council. 

The proposed solution is a brazen attempt to mislead the people again.  This overture for political parley is a charade for horse trading.  We’ll go soft on Hacienda Luisita, you go soft on GMA and her allies, you keep your dogs on leash and we keep ours muzzled.  Let us keep our options open for future trading and let us kiss and make for general consumption. 

If the executive and the judiciary patch up their differences along political compromises, the people would be treated with a frenetic vaudeville; of media hype  over a crisis that had been successfully averted, but it will always fall short of addressing the absence of moral integrity in the judiciary –  a big let down to the people whose basic requirement for efficient delivery of justice is the presence of incorruptible judges in the court’s majestic halls!

4 thoughts on “Is A Compromise over Unjust Justice Possible?

  1. Indeed. Such shenanigans are the heart and soul of corruption, which does not always involve swapping money. For the Administration to engage in horse trading would be a corruption of values. It would be in conflict with the President’s promise, and his mandate. As for the court, well, given its background, it is rather natural to expect some basis other than law or public well-being to drive its thinking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s