FLIGHT IS A SIGN OF GUILT

By: Neal H. Cruz

Philippine Daily Inquirer9:18 pm | Thursday, November 17th, 2011

If you were the warden of a prison and you suspect that some prisoners are planning to escape, won’t you take precautions? Will you give the prisoners passes to see their doctors outside prison?

Of course, you won’t if you have any common sense left. They may not come back again.

That, in a nutshell, is the predicament Justice Secretary Leila de Lima is in now. Signs are very clear that the Arroyos plan to escape the charges facing them. Once they leave the Philippines, chances are very high that they won’t come back anymore, perhaps until a friendly administration takes over the government. If you were the justice secretary, what would you do? You will use your common sense and try to stop them from leaving, won’t you?

Yes, the Supreme Court has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against putting them in the DOJ’s watch-list order (WLO). But the Court has been wrong many times before. And its credibility is not unassailable. It has shown, or at least this Court has, that it is not immune to politics. All the eight justices who voted for the TRO were appointees of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Add to that the fact that Mike Arroyo seems to have an inside man in the tribunal who told him that the justices would issue the TRO on Tuesday. The moment the TRO was issued, the Supreme Court spokesman held a press conference to announce it (before the DOJ was even served a copy of the order), and the Arroyos were all packed and ready to go. In fact, they had already booked flights out of the Philippines in several airlines. They would have been able to leave, too, had not De Lima issued orders to the Bureau of Immigration to bar them from leaving. What’s more, Mike Arroyo allegedly told a friend that they would leave the moment the TRO was issued. How did they know a TRO would be issued on that day?

Also, the Court imposed as one of the three conditions before the Arroyos can leave the deposit of a P2-million cash bond with the tribunal. It’s not that easy to produce that amount in so short a time. But lo and behold, the P2 million—in cash—was in the Court early Tuesday afternoon, even while the Court’s spokesman was telling the newsmen of such a condition.

As I see it, the Arroyos were in a panic to leave the country before the gates closed on them permanently. How do you explain the rush? They rushed to the airport with their lawyers and aides to try to leave Tuesday afternoon, but were prevented by immigration officials from doing so.

Why were they in a panic to leave? Because they know they are guilty? Innocent people would want to prove their innocence before a court of law. Why don’t the Arroyos do that instead of escaping? Remember, flight is a sign of guilt.

As for the Supreme Court, why did it schedule oral arguments, only to suddenly issue the TRO several days earlier?

As the DOJ said in its motion for reconsideration, the issuance of the TRO before the scheduled oral arguments is tantamount to a “pre-judgment of the Arroyos’ separate petitions challenging the constitutionality of DOJ Circular No. 41.” In other words, how were the majority of the justices able to decide that the issuance of a TRO is justified before it even heard arguments from both sides?

The motion of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) put it this way: “By issuing the TRO, the (Court) has effectively ruled on the constitutionality of DOJ Circular 41 without hearing and without even waiting for us to comment on the petitions or for the issues to be joined.

“The issue relating to (GMA’s) right to travel must be assessed taking into consideration the special and peculiar circumstances pertinent to her case.

“The Court must strike a balance between the general interest of the state … and the individual’s personal interest in ensuring the right to travel.”

The SC has scheduled a hearing today, but the TRO stays, meaning the Arroyo couple can leave. What is the hearing for if they have already flown the coop?

In its TRO, the Court imposed three conditions supposedly to ensure the return of the Arroyos: (1) the deposit of a P2-million cash bond; (2) the appointment of a legal representative here to receive court orders and summonses; and (3) the couple should report to the Philippine embassy or consulate in the country where they are.

These conditions won’t ensure the return of the Arroyos. P2 million is chicken feed to the Arroyos. The couple can afford to lose that. As discussed above, they immediately had the P2 million cash the moment (or maybe even before) the TRO was issued. As for the legal representative, you can give him all the summonses and orders you want, but if the Arroyos don’t want to come back, there is nothing he can do. He will probably say, “I have been sending them the court orders, but they said the doctors prevent them from leaving.” Or he can simply say, “They are not answering me. I don’t know where they are.”

As to requiring the Arroyos to report to the Philippine embassy or consulate in the country they are visiting, what if the country has no Philippine embassy or consulate? As the itinerary that GMA furnished the DOJ shows, we do not have embassies and consulates in several of the countries they plan to visit.

If the Arroyos are able to leave, I think they won’t come back anymore—not until an administration friendly to them takes over. And that will be on the conscience of the Supreme Court justices.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the last bulwark of the administration of justice. But in issuing the TRO, the high court is sabotaging the state’s effort to administer justice.

-o0o-

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." - Albert Einstein