THE SPECIAL prosecutor of the Ombudsman demeans the public with its ludicrous attempts to justify their plea bargain maneuvers by obfuscating the public mind, citing the lack of evidence to prove ill-gotten wealth “beyond (any) doubt” instead of “beyond reasonable doubt” as provided by law.<br />
In the face of fully documented, incontrovertible evidence showing such vast disparity between legitimate income and immense assets, the public cannot but conclude that the contrived legalistic “misreading” of the language of the law is being peddled to mask the complicity of the Ombudsman, and in the process its constitutional independence is invoked to evade accountabilities.<br />
Certainly such sophistry cannot—should not—frustrate our justice system.<br />
—ALFREDO V. ASUNCION,<br />
avasuncion@hotmail.com