|
Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justice Vicente Roxas must be
feeling the heat of a high-profile media blitz against him
apparently launched by the camp of Government Service Insurance
System (GSIS) President Winston Garcia. Justice Roxas should have
realized by now the kind of power wielded by Garcia—who is not
even an elective official.
It was Roxas who issued a temporary restraining
order that stopped the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from
implementing its cease-and-desist order against Manila Electric Co.
(Meralco). Since then he has been vilified almost daily in media
based on what appears to be mere innuendoes, which have been
cleverly played up, putting Roxas’ professional and personal
reputation at serious risk.
The hatchet job on the magistrate is worth
looking at if only for the valuable lessons it offers.
The assault kicked off with the announcement
that the GSIS camp would move to have Roxas inhibit himself from the
SEC issue. Then, the GSIS camp methodically laid out the premise for
the move. When examined closely, however, the reasons GSIS cited in
wanting the justice to inhibit himself appear to be based mainly on
hearsay and innuendo.
The press statements issued by the GSIS camp
consistently said it wants Roxas to inhibit himself because, take
note, it “received reports” that . . . so on and so forth.
The premise cited by the GSIS camp consists of
nothing more than “reports” it allegedly received. Begging the
question: From whom? It does not say so.
Did the GSIS camp examine the veracity of the
“reports” it received and the credibility of its sources? No, it
does not appear that way. It seems the GSIS camp swallowed the
“reports” hook, line and sinker and immediately came to the
conclusion that Roxas should inhibit himself.
“Reports” that are not authenticated,
verified or counter-checked are nothing more than hearsay and
innuendo. Still, the GSIS camp wants the public to believe that
Roxas must inhibit himself solely on the basis of hearsay and
innuendo.
The scheme is capped by the GSIS camp’s
reference to petitions for Roxas to inhibit himself in other cases
pending before him—which is both unfair and foul. The GSIS
camp’s motion against Roxas must be able to stand on its own
merit, and not on the strength of other petitions.
A more credible tack would have been for the
GSIS camp to simply file its petition, substantiate its allegation
with hard evidence and let the legal processes take their due
course.
Feeding the public with hearsay and innuendo
based on “reports” it “received” is obviously not part of
the legal effort. At best, it is a demonstration of PR savvy
intended to win the case, not in a court of law, but in the tribunal
of popular perception.
Of course, as far as the CA and Roxas are
concerned, this kind of vilification comes, as it were, with the
territory. Nonetheless, it is entirely unfair.
Roxas appears to be merely coincidental to the
GSIS camp’s game plan. The all too evident objective: serve notice
to “all and sundry” that they can suffer the same predicament if
they ever dare tangle with the GSIS camp. Signals received loud and
clear. Now the public really has cause to be afraid.
Come to think of it, the same
“we-received-reports-that” ruse has been the main ploy employed
by the GSIS camp. It is being used to cast doubt on any and all
issues involving its row with Meralco.
To be sure, Meralco does have many things to
clarify, explain and take responsibility for. Also, the GSIS camp
has every right to ask Roxas to inhibit himself.
What is deplorable is the apparent effort to
whip up a firestorm of popular indignation for the sake of an agenda
that has no real benefit to the public.
If only to foil this foul plot, Roxas should
stand his ground in this particular confrontation with the powerful
figures in the GSIS camp.
If he capitulates, that would be a triumph of
the “we-received-reports-that” gambit that capitalizes on
hearsay and innuendo.
By standing his ground, Roxas would send the
signal that the judiciary cannot be bullied. And that the courts
continue to base heir judgment on verified facts.
If only the public would do the same. We cannot
fall victims to those who try to manipulate public passions solely
on the basis of “reports that we received.”
|
