Dangerous rush to judgment
The ongoing impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona has stirred powerful passions across the country, but perhaps none more powerful than David L. Balangue’s boorish and precipitate attempt to tip the scales of justice. (Inquirer, 2/18/12)
Even though the prosecution is still in the process of presenting evidence (which the senator-judges may yet rule as inadmissible), Balangue has declared with finality that Corona is guilty based on the alleged “preponderance of evidence that over P30 million, and still counting, of his assets were undervalued” or unreported in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth. This is a dangerous rush to judgment coming, as it does, from a pillar of the business community.
Balangue fusses over truth, accountability and transparency. That is precisely what the impeachment trial is all about. The search for truth and accountability requires, first and foremost, adherence to the processes set by law. To infringe on those processes, as Balangue has recklessly done and invites us to do, is to undermine the rule of law—without which we will all be at the mercy of anticorruption zealots and vice squads.
Let me stress that fighting corruption is important, and it deserves our highest priority. But certainly it should not be done at the risk of corrupting the fundamental ways we pursue the ends of justice.
I hold little sympathy for Corona. He may indeed be guilty of many things. But he must have his day in court, and under our system of constitutional democracy we are bound to protect the rights of the accused.
Unfortunately, Balangue finds disturbing the fact that several prominent business organizations have kept “quiet on, and appear indifferent to, this gripping national issue.” He rules out the likelihood that their dissent from his dogmatic views may well be more circumspect and prudent. A democratic society, after all, demands a pluralism of thought, fairness, broad-mindedness, and a tolerance for our differences.
Incomprehensibly, Balangue also makes cowardice a virtue. He asserts that during the Arroyo administration, “concerns about possible reprisals were not totally unfounded,” implying that it is appropriate to be silent when corruption is furiously endemic. Balangue contends that the impeachment trial “is a litmus test of the country’s resolve in the fight against corruption.” Wrong. It is a litmus test of our capacity to uphold the majesty of law and render objective justice. It is this capacity—more than the intermittent campaigns against corruption—that foreign investors will find reassuring.
Finally, it is wrong to belittle or trifle with the earnest efforts of the tribunal by leaping to conclusions, as Balangue has done. As citizens, we have an obligation to allow the tribunal full rein to look beyond momentary partisan conflicts and give voice to the larger values of a political system that rests on a foundation of law.
—REX D. LORES,
