SolGen’s intriguing flip-flop
There’s more than meets the eye in the manifestation of Solicitor General Jose Calida at the Court of Appeals that a Manila court erred in convicting alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim Napoles of the serious illegal detention of her cousin Benhur Luy.
Under normal circumstances, there is nothing wrong with the Office of the Solicitor General questioning the validity of a decision issued by a court. The OSG can even refuse to represent a government office if it thinks the latter’s action, when questioned in court, is contrary to law.
This is because the OSG is envisioned as the “People’s Tribune” that promotes the rule of law regardless of the parties involved, including the government.
However, there are circumstances behind the filing of the manifestation that tend to impugn the credibility of Calida’s explanation that he made it because he was “duty-bound not to allow an innocent person go to the gallows.”
On Aug. 8, 2016, more than a month after Calida assumed office, the OSG, through Assistant SolGen Raymond Rigodon, filed a brief in the appellate court affirming Napoles’ conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Unless Calida was on leave or physically incapacitated at the time this brief was filed, it is reasonable to assume that he reviewed it and approved its filing. No OSG lawyer in his or her right mind would dare file a pleading in court on such an important case without first clearing it with the boss.
Five months later, last Jan. 20, Calida had a change of mind. This time, he is of the belief that the evidence presented to convict Napoles did not meet the required quantum of evidence.
Until investigative journalists exposed this flip-flop, the usually voluble Calida kept quiet about it for over a month. Forced to explain his turnaround, he said he countermanded the action of his assistant after reading the brief filed by Napoles’ lawyers.
His explanation drew guffaws from lawyers who are familiar with appellate procedures and the inner workings of the OSG. In the long and glorious history of the OSG, this was the first time it disparaged its own submission and made one of its top lawyers look like a cop who couldn’t shoot straight.
As if his somersault was not enough to besmirch the OSG’s reputation, Calida even impugned the integrity of the judge who convicted Napoles.
In an interview by CNN Philippines, Calida said, citing reports that allegedly reached him, the judge was pressured into rendering a guilty verdict. With that statement, which was given without the benefit of verification and based solely on hearsay, Calida committed a big disservice against His Honor and, in a larger sense, the Philippine judicial system.
Lest Calida forget, he is no longer a private lawyer who can openly express dissatisfaction with a decision that is adverse to his client. He is the lawyer of the Republic of the Philippines whose statements carry weight and should therefore be careful whenever he says something in public.
There was absolutely no need for Calida to malign the judge in his efforts to defend Napoles. If he is truly confident about the strength of his position, he could just have let the justices study his arguments without casting aspersions on the character of the judge. Indeed, his undue interest in Napoles’ case is intriguing.
With two conflicting comments coming from the OSG, the justices are in a bind. They have to decide which brief to take into consideration in the resolution of Napoles’ appeal.
In the alternative, they may disregard both submissions and choose to review the entire proceedings of the case to determine the validity of her conviction. It will not come as a surprise that in the resolution of the appeal, the justices may make some not-so-flattering statements about the OSG’s wishy-washy preparation of its pleadings.
Hopefully, flip-flopping incidents of this sort will not be repeated in the future. If it happens again, the OSG’s acronym may get a new meaning: Office of Second Guesses.
Raul J. Palabrica ([email protected]) writes a weekly column in the Business section of the Inquirer.
