9/19/13 ______ NOT AUTHORIZED BY _______ , SAYS _________. (Inexplaining Explanations) At a broadsheet front page today is an explanation given by a spokesman of an official implicated in the pork barrel scam that the official’s subordinate was not authorized by the official to make the pork fund endorsements to fake NGOs. Apparently, this proffer of innocence was made to dispel the perception that silence is a sign, if not an admission, of guilt. But, as it is, the explanation leaves the reader still in blank. There is no assurance that indeed the explanation of the official is his. Later on, if the explanation is not supported by the evidence and the official is confronted with the explanation, he can conveniently disown it and say that the spokesman was speaking for himself, in the same manner that he disowned the acts of the subordinate. This, under the legal and Latin principle of res inter alios acta, or, loosely in the vernacular, kanya-kanya, i.e. one is not bound by the words, acts or omissions of another. The explanation would have been more acceptable if personally made by the official himself because this would bind him under the principles on admissions against interest, e.g. a declaration or statement of a person may be used in evidence against him. Legal erudition or deprivation differentiates the official from the others who boldly personally chest beat and trumpet their claims of innocence.
Posted on: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 23:58:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015