ANOTHER SEEMINGLY LIBELOUS IF NOT LIBELOUS POST IN FACEBOOK ENTITLED THE LOOTERS. An eye-catching article in Facebook entitled THE LOOTERS was posted the other day. Big pictures of former Presidents Ferdinand E. Marcos, Joseph Estrada and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as well as incumbent Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and Ramon Revilla, Jr. were prominently displayed therein. They allegedly plundered the national treasury as government officials. Since plunder was mentioned, it implies that the loot taken or amount stolen by each of the named present and former government officials is P50M or more! However, except for former President Joseph Estrada who was convicted of Plunder where he was pardoned and therefore admitted his guilt, it could not be said of the other five (5) officials. Is it fair, therefore, to describe them as Looters or plunderers when no court has found them guilty of the said crime? Are those who posted it, and who liked the post aware of the evidence against them as well as the evidence in their favor or are they just basing their opinions on what they read or heard from other sources which are definitely hearsay evidence which should not be entitled to any weight, surmises, speculations, conjectures or personal opinions? Please take note that while former President Ferdinand Marcos was charged of numerous criminal and civil cases before the Sandiganbayan, he was not tried nor convicted of a single single case! Whose fault? THE GOVERNMENT! Marcos in 1989 asked for travel papers from the Department of Foreign Affairs in order to be able to return to the country from Hawaii in order to face the said criminal cases even at the risk of being jailed if only to clear my name, he said. The government refused and as such, his cases could not proceed because the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over his person. Coincidentally, no less than the Supreme Court in the case of FERDINAND MARCOS VS. SC. RAUL MANGLAPUS of the Department of Foreign Affairs , GR No. 8821, September 15 & October 27, 1989, sustained the governments action . YET, THE GOVERNMENT SPENDS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS JUST TO BE ABLE TO EXTRADITE SUSPECTED CRIMINALS WHO WERE ABLE TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY AND HIDE IN THE UNITED STATES LIKE ATONG ANG, MICHAEL RAY AQUINO, AND OTHERS, TO NAME A FEW. In the case of Marcos, he was willing to return to the country , be tried and be imprisoned if found guilty but no less than the entity saying he committed the crime refused. What does that mean? If the government through the Solicitor General had the evidence to convict him, why did it refused the Marcos offer to return? Or is it because the evidence in its possession is weak and strong only because of the publicity? Make no mistake about my dislike of Marcos because he shamed all the Ilocanos during his 21-year misrule and I belong to the first batch of lawyers after the EDSA Revolution. But even the most hardened criminal is entitled to the presumption of innocence under our Constitution...
Posted on: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 02:55:12 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015