In 1 of every 10 cases, justice and reality are set apart

THE LETTER titled “SC rule bars review of demurrer appeals” (Opinion, 7/26/16) showed the naivete of its writer, Annalee Lauder.

She was correct in citing the pertinent rule (Sec. 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court) which should have barred any review of the Sandiganbayan’s ruling on former president Gloria Arroyo’s “demurrer.” However, she totally misunderstood the reality of its application.

In nine out of 10 cases, practicing lawyers agree that, by virtue of that rule, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court almost automatically denies “due course” to petitions questioning the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on “demurrer to evidence” (i.e., the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt). The rule on the matter requires that the trial court proceed to hear the defense and render judgment in due time. It is only after judgment that appellate review can see the light of day.

But the other 10 percent of the cases seem to be reserved to “very important parties” or their lawyers who have a “hot line” to the “honorable justices.” In those rare instances, the Supreme Court pontificates that it has the “inherent power to suspend the rules in the higher interest of justice.” The rest are treated like “camels” vainly trying to pass through the eye of a needle. If that seems like a double standard of justice, it is.

In the case of the biggest “VIP” of all (Arroyo, who appointed the majority of them), the rule was simply tossed out the window.

And by the way, when Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile was still struggling to secure bail in his own plunder case, he was made to appear too sickly and frail to last another day in detention. After the Supreme Court ordered his release on bail, he morphed overnight into the fittest and most active nonagenarian hereabouts.

The same thing happened in the case of Arroyo. She was made to look like she was suffering from all kinds of unbearable ailments and about to fall apart. After the Supreme Court ordered her release, she was a picture of good health with the ubiquitous neck brace no longer in sight! How could the Supreme Court miss all that farce?

—JEREMIAS H. TOBIAS, jeremhech@gmail.com