On Erap’s pardon: No need for interpretation

In reaction to the commentary of Peter Wallace (“What has the Supreme Court done?” Opinion, 2/19/15), allow us to make a few observations.

The Supreme Court “allowed adherence to strict interpretation of the words of the law to overrule good common sense…,” Wallace railed.

The rule of thumb is, where the language is clear, there is no need for interpretations or to search for true intents. The presidential pardon granted plunder convict Joseph “Erap” Estrada was as plain as a pikestaff: “… he is hereby restored to his civil and political rights.” Who needs to have that interpreted? Resort to the intent is only necessary in case of ambiguity.

Even if we go by the intent, it still adds up. If it was the “intent” to hold him to his promise “to no longer seek any elective position or office,” the grantor should have stopped at restoring his “civil rights.” The fact that the grantor also categorically restored Erap’s “political rights” could only mean the grantor did not believe he would keep his word, or at least she considered it totally irrelevant. The problem really lay with the grantor whose wisdom, or sense of morality in that regard, is outside the ambit of judicial review.

“[A]llowing one uninformed person to overrule the judgment of an established court of law” is absurd, said Wallace in disgust.

The reality is, it’s the law no matter how annoyingly it sticks in his craw. That “uninformed person” happened to be the president of the Republic then, elected by the sovereign people either to rule with moral scruples or make a mess of things some of us may hold sacred! The Constitution enshrines such prerogative as part of the “checks and balances” theoretically to be exercised by the executive branch vis-à-vis the judicial branch.

Again, the problem would rest upon the quality of the electorate our political system spawns. Until the voters learn to choose wisely the leaders they want for this country, we just have to live with that farce and take comfort in the drivel “vox populi, vox Dei”—and pray that God play no more pranks on us by letting kleptocrats get elected almost all the time!

And for his postscript, Wallace asked for an answer: “Can someone tell me why it’s wrong to accept the help of the US government to catch an international terrorist?”

As far as we know, given this country’s meager resources, no one in his right mind is questioning the wisdom of getting that kind of help. Who then is saying otherwise—other than, of course, the usual militant leftists in our midst who would gather around the US Embassy and torch the American flag at the slightest provocation, but keep away from the Chinese Embassy despite the flagrant Chinese invasion of our territorial seas? Neal H. Cruz’s own P.S. to his column in the Feb. 20 issue of the Inquirer (“Look who’s behind oust-P-Noy effort”) should also be good read for Wallace.

—STEPHEN L. MONSANTO, Monsanto Law Office, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, lexsquare.firm@gmail.com