|
The continuing, seemingly never-ending, saga of the
trial of President Estrada appears to confirm the claim of the
Critical Legal Studies (CLS) Movement that the rule of law under a
Western-style liberal democracy, which the Philippines aspires to
become, is but a fiction. For politics has pervaded the entire
process, from its inception to its near conclusion, as evidenced
most recently by the government’s alleged offer of a pardon.
CLS stems from the perspective of
radical left-wing politics. It emerged in the United States during
the mid-1970s as an attack on liberal ideas about law and legal
institutions. Liberal societies are riddled by illegitimate
hierarchies of power and law is merely an instrument used by the
powerful to maintain their dominant positions in society.
Consequently, the rule of law is merely a mask for the rule of
force. Everything is political; there is no such thing as an
impartial trial governed by the rule of law.
Even during the saga’s
inception or first chapter, the Senate impeachment, political forces
were already at work. Concededly, such a proceeding is, by its
nature, partly political. This is because the trial is conducted in
a forum where the judges are partisan senators. Hence judgment is
expected to be reached in accordance with party affiliations.
Nonetheless, the public expected
much more from the rule of law. Those against the President
expressed their disdain or distrust of his lawyers’ use of legal
niceties or procedural technicalities by referring to them as
“legal gobbledygook.” To them, legalities were nothing but
obstacles in the way of arriving at truth and substantial justice.
Ultimately, the public got in the
act, which marked the second chapter of the saga. When the
impeachment court voted along party lines in upholding the validity
of a procedural tactic used by the President’s lawyers to prevent
certain evidence from surfacing, the public became convinced that
justice was not possible. It took to the streets in a massive and
spontaneous demonstration of people power.
The battle lines of a
Philippine-style liberal democracy were thus drawn. On one side were
the antigovernment protesters, composed of business, the Catholic
Church, the leftists, the intellectuals, a faction of the political
elite, the media and much of the middle class. On the other side
were another faction of the political elite, the members of the
Cabinet and other government officials, and the poor who elected him
into office. The turning point occurred when the military defected
and sided in favor of the protesters. The conflict was ended for all
intents and purposes when President Arroyo was sworn into office by
the Supreme Court at the height of the demonstrations. The Court
then validated her assumption into power and legitimated her
government by means of a Supreme Court decision. Given the
circumstances, some have stubbornly maintained at their peril that
the decision could not have been neutral or impartial; it could only
have been political.
The legitimization of her
government was meant to assure the public that the rule of law was
never abandoned and will never be abandoned by the new government.
Thus came about the third chapter of the saga, the criminal trial of
President Estrada. This time, however, the shoe was on the other
foot. President Arroyo now stood for the rule of law.
Despite her avowed fealty to the
rule of law, the public remains convinced that the case will be
decided by political considerations, and not by legal argument. Some
have opined that the justices of the Sandiganbayan have no choice
but to find him guilty; for to rule otherwise would undermine the
very validity of the government they are serving. Others have
conjectured that the justices, on the contrary, would find him
innocent, so as to avoid the political turmoil and backlash coming
from the loyal supporters of President Estrada who remain legion.
The cynical ones who believe President Estrada to be guilty—for
who in government isn’t corrupt—similarly conclude that
financial, and not legal, considerations would ultimately settle the
issue. Even the prosecution and the defense lawyers acknowledged the
reality of its political nature by their very tactics, as manifested
in the many skirmishes during the trial.
(Continued next week)
eqfernando@hotmail.com
|
