Every little crook and cranny

Anyone who has ever had to deal with an infestation will be able to relate to this. Underneath cupboards, behind hollow cornices and walls, beneath every crevice, nook or cranny there is room where little vermin often squeeze through for temporary safe haven or refuge.   Even cockroaches, when not in directionless flight, can crawl through the tiniest cracks. Smaller termites, often carrying mud, can bore through the strongest wood and weaken the sturdiest structures.   The allegory is apt when applied to the on-going controversies surrounding one of the most divisive personalities in our recent history.   Even when rendered immobile, bound and virtually imprisoned in an alloy cage, the woman elicits little pity. Practically caged as she is, under arrest and confined to a hospital suite as she gathers strength, far from de-fanged, Gloria Arroyo is still not without means. Worse, she is not without influence.   For her followers to hustle, she need not nod. Armed with the best legal team money can buy, she is seeking tactical refuge from charges brought against her. Unfortunately, within our damaged institutions, between the law’s spirit and its word, there are cracks and crannies any smart-ass lawyer can employ.   From the silly to the sublime, let us analyze a handful of counter-accusations. In each, let us see how our remnant foundations may have been irreparably damaged by an incumbency that summarily destroyed institutions.   The first is a charge that Presidential Political Affairs Adviser Ronald Llamas misread the failure to question a Department of Justice – Commission on Elections (DOF-Comelec) joint probe of systemic fraud in the 2007 midterm elections as proof Arroyo intended to flee.   How silly is that? The Arroyo government had typically acted with impunity on most things. Criticism of her governance was hardly ever responded to save for the usual “So Sue Me” challenge. Congressional probes were typically met with boycotts or outright dismissals. Viewed against such arrogance, the failure to challenge the DOF-Comelec probe says nothing. It does not prove she did not intend to flee.   The second is a charge that the DOF-Comelec probe was unconstitutional. This is important. The results of that probe served as the basis for the filing of criminal electoral sabotage charges.   Separately, both the DOJ and the Comelec are chartered and authorized to conduct probes. What they are authorized to do separately, applies when they conduct it jointly. If critics cannot understand the logic, then maybe they can understand the first grade arithmetic. Two positives yield a positive.   The third is an accusation that the electoral sabotage case filed in a Pasay City Regional Trial Court (RTC) was railroaded given that the RTC judge had decided probable causes after only hours from receiving the charge sheet and its attachments.   This is an argument of simplistic proportions designed to pander to gossip and shoptalk-analysis based on a cursory knowledge of legal processes and ignorance of what came before. Under legal processes, charges can be filed and later amended as needed.   Electoral sabotage is a criminal offense. Its basis was the electoral protest of Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III against then-Senator Miguel Zubiri. That attained closure when the latter resigned. The processes took over three years and was documented by as many ballots as had been questioned.   That the elections were tainted needed no further analysis. The only question facing the RTC judge was the involvement of Arroyo.   Finally, Arroyo’s lawyers contend that as an official with a salary grade above “27” under the Civil Service Commission classifications, Arroyo should be charged at the Sandiganbayan and not the RTC.   The Sandiganbayan is a graft court. Created under Presidential Decree no. 1486, it encompasses graft and corruption and other such offenses committed in relation to the office occupied.   Electoral sabotage is neither graft nor corruption. The offense is criminal and falls under the Omnibus Election Code. When it involves a protest, then the appropriate courts are the electoral tribunals. When the offense is criminal, as originally intended, the appropriate courts are the regular courts such as the RTC.   The Sandiganbayan has no monopoly on public officials. The question of a court’s appropriateness is based on the nature of the offense and not on the personality of the accused. There are at least two precedents which serve as jurisprudential bases that support this. One is the case of De Jesus v. The People, G.R. no.L-61998, February 28, 1983, 120 SCRA 760. The other is Natividad Corpus, et al v. Tanodbayan, et al, April 15, 1987 G.R. no. L-62075.   It is ironic that these perceived cracks in our legal system were eaten through by entities who acted with impunity but now rely on those for refuge. The justice system that they had cavalierly corrupted is the same that now applies itself to redeem justice too-long denied.