How Lucrative Dispensing Justice Is?

The tables are turned. 

Defense counsel for CJ Justice Corona presented Congressman Tobias Tiangco on March 12, 2012 to prove that the articles of impeachment filed by the house against the jurist was flawed because it was impossible for the 188 congressmen to have read the complaint before affixing their signatures thereat and if ever they signed the impeachment, it was probably on account of Priority Development Assistance Funds (PDAF).

It was the turn of the defense to present a “dissenting” opinion in the House to censure the majority in its decision to impeach the jurist.  This was the same spectacle when 3 weeks ago, the prosecution presented Secretary of Justice, Lila De Lima to narrate the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno about the effort of Chief Justice Corona to overreach some members of the Court and prevent the dissenting opinions of Justice Sereno and Justice Carpio to be released together with the majority opinion nullifying Justice Dept. Circular N0. 41 and thus paving the way to the much anticipated travel of Mrs.  Arroyo and her husband Mike, abroad, had not the feisty Secretary  tarried for a while to obey the Order of the Court. 

The defense would then label the testimony of Sec. De Lima as hearsay, but it was alright for it to present Congressman Tiangco who went to the caucus on December 12, stayed for about 2 hours and 40 minutes and left his colleagues the momentous task of processing the impeachment he would later impugn as irregular. 

He would narrate that the impeachment was politically motivated and it was to destabilize the Supreme Court.  Luckily, the presiding officer, Juan Ponce Enrile, stopped his narrative as being pure “opinion”, though in the case of De Lima, speaking on the basis of the records of the court (dissenting opinions of Justice Sereno and Justice Carpio) the defense would call her testimony “hearsay.” 

But in both situations the purpose was the same — to make a minority view overrides the majority view.  The majority in the Court would want GMA and her husband to travel, the minority said no. The majority members of the House of Representatives impeached Corona, but the minority (which includes Tiangco), said no.  Because the minority in the house said no, they would want the majority to abide by their decision not to impeach Corona and if impeached derogate the articles of impeachment as flawed. 

Congressman Tobias is wrong about his political geography.  He is a member of a political institution, the House of Representatives,  and he is a politician and not a member of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines.  The language in the house is politics and politics is about horse-trading to arrive at a consensus.  If the majority party does not want to trade-horse with the minority, the minority gets the horse’s shits instead. The minority is allowed to speak, but this small group cannot dictate the course of action of the majority. Congressman Tiangco and his friends whom you can count your fingers can cry their hearts out, but that’s the most they can do.

PDAF is a politics of accommodation.  There is no immorality about it. If the release of funds is conditioned to their signing the impeachment, and the signatures of the majority were bartered for PDAF, then you have politics in all its splendor carrying the business for the day.  This is the very essence of a democratic process.

I’ll give you money if you impeach Corona who is a stumbling block to government’s effort to make GMA and her band of criminals accountable to the people.  They did not even have to be cajoled to sign the impeachment complaint with a promise of money – because it was their duty to put to task a person who appears to be coddling another crook instead of making her accountable for her misdeeds.

The house already made a political determination that as a body it should impeach CJ Corona.  This decision binds the minority.  

But why rebuke Congress for undertaking a position on account of money that the members badly needed for their infrastructure and social welfare projects in their districts?   Have anyone gone to the provincial districts of these Congressmen to see a long queue of people  early morning waiting for a turn to speak to their congressmen to ask money for medicine, burial cost of their relatives, hospitalization of the sick, and matriculation fee for their children, food and other menial needs?  

Every day, Courts render decisions on high profile cases on promise of monetary return from litigants too. And unlike the money for congressmen, the money for jurists are never funneled back to the people who need the money most but instead they are safely tucked in bank accounts which they can convert easily from peso to dollar to completely hide them from the public.

Anyway, Congressman Tiangco does not want the Court to be destabilized by bringing a case against CJ Corona even in the light of initial evidence that the impeached jurist have so much money the origin of which he may not be able to credibly explain to the impeachment court and thus, the defense ask him to sing the old tune that the Senate has no jurisdiction to proceed with the impeachment case because it was flawed for lack of verification or the majority bartered its signature for money.  

It was self-righteous  for Congressman Tobias to say that he would be voting for the impeachment of CJ  Corona based on law and on impeachable offenses and not for political reasons and money.  He did not read the complaint and bother to ask for more clarifications from his colleagues as he was in a hurry to go to bed that day. 

He equates his disagreement with his colleagues as a position of moral uprightness and theirs’ a devious scheme to destabilize the Supreme Court.  Never in his mind did it occur that he could be wrong and his colleagues could be right.  Apparently he is totally unaware that his colleagues have already shown to the Senate that CJ Corona have amassed lots of money and real properties worth millions and another P34.7 million from Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc., of which he has no authority to keep.  Tuck in them his dollar deposits which he would not disclose and the public get the picture how lucrative the business of dispensing justice is!

15 thoughts on “How Lucrative Dispensing Justice Is?

  1. The greenhorn in this Tiangco sticks like a sore thumb. Learn your ABC of politics first, kiddo! Getoutta here!

  2. And how righteous could he get. He’s on the stand right now, and he just said categorically that he won’t run for the senate and instead he’d finish his consecutive term of 9 years. Sigurado na siyang mananalo sa 2013 and 2016… hehe…

  3. I think he is just after media mileage. KSP e. Totally no relevance to proving Corona’s innocence. Should be an actor. Intimidated daw but ang lakas ng loob mag salata sa senate – voluntary pa. Si MAng Indo ang totooong tao na tinakot. He does not even show a shred a fear. Comedian pa.

  4. Pingback: My Homepage

  5. This article is simply flawed. First, the author does not understand the concept of a hearsay comparing Tiangco to De Lima. Tiangco has personal knowledge because he is a member of Congress, De Lima’s testimony is hearsay because she does not have personal knowledge and is merely basing her opinion in Sereno’s dissenting opinion which anyone can read. So the thing the author calls the same spectacle is very different. Second PDAF is not the president’s money and because of this, if you know how many people are lining up to congressmen to ask for financial assistance, for medicine and food for people dying out there and you withhold just because you know the ABC’s of politics that you say is some form of leverage to get congressmen do whatever the president wants, your brain is nothing but twisted. Your caprice over the people’s lives? Seriously, There is no immorality about it? Third, let me quote “Because the minority in the house said no, they would want the majority to abide by their decision not to impeach Corona and if impeached derogate the articles of impeachment as flawed”. Whoever claimed Tiangco was against the impeachment in the first place? What he was against was the manner of impeaching when they were not given the chance to read everything and they were not given the chance to ask questions. Tiangco never said that the minority and not the majority should decide whether the impeachment should push through or not. It is ridiculous how one can still insist that the House of Reps has presented a case strong enough to prove anything. Is your TV broken? Haven’t you been watching the prosecution asking for leniency fishing desperately for proof just to save themselves? Really? Fake documents, undated documents, no names? That’s the best you got? I’d say read more if that’ll help!

    • you simply failed to see the bigger picture that both witnesses were trying to discredit the position of the majority by presenting the minority position.

  6. and you simply failed to see the big difference between them. There is no bigger picture. The veracity of what they are saying is immaterial. Yes, they were both discrediting majorities but who between them is saying things out of personal knowledge?

  7. he said that he was not given time to read– but he left early . he could have stayed a little more longer to be able his duty more judiciously.. the majority found no problem signing the impeachment complaint… that it was for PDAF is a moral judgment you made but you would deprive the majority to make the same moral judgment against congressman tiangco.

  8. so seriously when you say time to read like time to read a news article? Like just for an hour? When they asked for time it could even mean days. After reading it is still subject to debate and discussion do you think leaving late that night would accomplish all that? Besides, the act was already in progress and they were already denied the opportunity. What is there for them to stay longer? What duty? How exactly? The majority found no problem signing I agree with you and that’s what makes it disturbing because they found no problem signing something without reading. I did not make any moral judgment about PDAF. I don’t know where you got that.

  9. dude, that’s water under the bridge now… the impeachment court found the action of the majority in the house to be in accord with form and substance. you can no longer dispute that it was flawed. you simply have to meet the accusations in the impeachment head on. as they say, move on!

  10. Dude, yes that is water under the bridge now. I never said it isn’t. You keep putting words in my mouth and you argue about it yourself. I have asked you a lot of questions you haven’t answered even them. You were talking about Tiangco being similar to DeLima. And now you are talking about the impeachment court ruling finally on the validity of the action of the house.

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