‘Riot of silence’ in face of contumacious charges

FOR THE nth time, Inquirer columnist Ramon Tulfo has not only placed the Court of Appeals (CA) on the spot—perhaps, even in a “compromising situation.” But his exposé about the huge amount “budgeted” for a “successful resolution” of the Ampatuan case is something that cannot just be ignored. (Inquirer, 2/12/11) As a former RTC judge and member of the bar, I can only cringe at his insinuations, albeit accusations, of anomalies and irregularities that attend the disposition of cases on appeal. Indeed, the Meralco bribery scandal that ended in the disciplinary action meted out by the Supreme Court against some CA justices may have allowed the continuing presence of “scalawags” thereat.
It is rather unnerving that in spite of the severity of Tulfo’s denunciations, neither the CA as collegial body nor any of its honorable justice has come out with any disclaimer or denial. Lamentably, not a single lawyer or even a plain citizen has defended the CA or demanded that Tulfo be brought before the bar of justice to make him accountable for his contumacious allegations that not only degrade the dispensation of justice but also bring the CA into disrepute and public ridicule.
Recently, the Supreme Court ordered some leaders of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, like Dante Jimenez as well as the offended party Lauro Vizconde, to explain why they should not be cited for contempt of court on account of their public criticism of the decision that resulted in the acquittal of Hubert Webb and his co-accused. In contrast, nothing has been done by the CA by way of reacting to the offensive articles of Tulfo. Thus, one can only surmise if the CA itself cannot dispute or refute the columnist. Verily, the situation demands that the institution respond with more than just a “riot of silence.”
—CESAR M. SOLIS,
Millora & Solis Law Offices,
Rm. 306, Manere Bldg. 3,
41 V. Luna Ave., Quezon City