Time to shift to the ‘jury system’ of justice

We should be glad to know that some Supreme Court justices are due to retire before the end of 2016. The Court then will be at least two less of the great number of current members perceived to be incorrigibly loyal to former president Gloria Arroyo (and her former minions). More old fogeys in that circle are exiting in 2017, hallelujah!

This country needs a new majority in that Court to redeem it from perceptions of being tarnished, biased and whimsical. All it takes to ruin the Court is a patently bad, game-changing decision that defies common sense. The one recent ruling that stuck out like a sore thumb was the grant of bail to Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile on “humanitarian grounds” in a plunder case where he stands accused of having pocketed some P173 million of his pork barrel. The grant of bail on those grounds used to be unheard of. Mocking all jurisprudence, that same majority shoved that lame ruling down everyone’s throat! His lawyer was, of course—do we need to point this out?

The other ruling was in an Arroyo case where she was accused of having orchestrated the unlawful diversion of funds from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office for dubious (because unaccounted for) purposes in the amount of about P366 million. There was no question she ordered the diversion contrary to law; but since there was no direct evidence that she pocketed any of that money (an almost impossible proposition to prove), she committed no crime. The usual eight justices voted as expected. The three more who joined them raised eyebrows—no one knows what really got into their heads. Arroyo’s lawyer in the Supreme Court was the same lawyer who figured in Enrile’s grant of bail! Does this guy ever lose any case in the Supreme Court?

Amid speculations that the Enrile case would go the way of the Arroyo case, this lawyer said quite a mouthful (“Ex-Sol Gen says Arroyo acquittal to benefit Enrile in plunder case,” Inquirer.net, 7/22/16). Indeed, since Enrile never received a single centavo from the alleged diversion of his pork barrel—as the person actually receiving the “kickbacks” (for him?)  was allegedly his chief of staff—he should likewise be acquitted.

Our take is, under this “doctrinal ruling” of the current Supreme Court, masterminds (who are usually too far removed from—and whose fingerprints are nowhere found—at the scene of the crime) can never be convicted of any crime if the evidence points only to their minions as the ones who actually committed it—never mind  that they masterminded it.

Maybe the time has come for this country to adopt the “jury system” of justice where ordinary people with enough common sense can pass judgment—better than judges or justices who are too hung up on technicalities, missing the forest for the trees?

—MARCELO “JR” GARCIS, [email protected]