Gone to the dogs
John Nery’s March 13 column, “Enrile is proof of politicized Court,” seemed to speak the truth about how easy it is to make “fools” of supposedly brilliant minds dispensing justice and passing final judgment upon the lives and fortunes of the people of this benighted nation — if “considerations” outside the merits of the case come into play, as they often do where VIPs are involved.
Former senator Juan Ponce Enrile got the full benefit of a friendly majority in the Supreme Court who granted him bail in a nonbailable plunder case “on grounds that Enrile did not even raise!” For so-called “humanitarian” reasons, those justices handed his freedom over to him on a silver platter.
Nery omitted to mention the case of former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo whom the majority of the Supreme Court justices too eagerly did the huge favor of acquitting before trial could be terminated by a lower court.
What do Enrile’s and Arroyo’s cases have in common? Special consideration was apparently given to their political and social status and, of course, their “pitifully poor state of health.” Enrile was portrayed to be almost dying and, if his detention continued any longer, to surely die! Arroyo was portrayed as about to physically and mentally fall apart but for the ubiquitous neck brace she was wearing during photo opportunities.
And as soon as the Supreme Court set them free, Enrile became the picture of spectacular health. He even went campaigning for his favorite candidates during the 2016 elections. On the other hand, Arroyo immediately shed off her neck brace and was herself the picture of an old lady still in the pink of health. Special treatment from the Supreme Court, not medical attention from doctors, was all they really needed to bring them back to “normal.”
Did the Supreme Court justices whose hearts supposedly bled for them realize they’ve been had? It would be very naive of everyone to think that those justices were fooled at all. To paraphrase Nery: Supreme Court justices have no problem bending over “backwards and sideways and upside down”—in deliberately mocking all laws of the land where favored parties are concerned. What kind of rotten justice regime is this?
The present infighting among the justices of the Supreme Court themselves, and the battle lines drawn between “red” and “purple” among lower court justices and judges and instigated by Court Administrator Midas Marquez himself who is shamelessly using the influence of his office, make the people wonder if this country has already gone to the dogs!
ROMANO M. MONTENEGRO, [email protected]
