DUCKY PAREDES
‘Impeach the Chief Justice? If we do not … let us forget about pretending that this country will change and will henceforth hew to the straight and narrow path.’
"DELICADEZA," the lack of it, is the main sin of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
When a person is offered a job during the time that the appointing power is forbidden by the Constitution from doing any appointing, clearly, a person who accepts such an appointment (knowing as he does that the appointment is a forbidden one) does not have it. If he did, he would have turned down the appointment, even if he is convinced that he is the best one for the job or even that he does not believe (without any reasonable explanation) that the Constitution does not apply to this particular appointment.
Why? Because accepting the appointment is simply not done by a person of stature and sensibility. Even presuming that one believes that the Constitution (without any proof or reason) exempts him from its provisions, a person of delicadeza would have enough of it to forego the position for the moment in order not to do damage to the position.
When a person is in a position of honor and stature and his wife is offered a job where she is not even expected to do any work or even go to the office, should she accept it? Not if either of them has any delicadeza!
When a patron who appointed one to his position and to previous positions of trust and confidence stands before one, to be judged for whatever she has done, does one judge her or does one recuse? (Recusal, or the judge’s act of disqualifying himself from presiding over a proceeding, is done because judges are charged with a duty of impartiality in administering justice.)
Someone with delicadeza would not trust himself to be fair in his judgment nor would he expect others to give him the benefit of the doubt. That is, if one had any delicadeza.
I do not know exactly what delicadeza is but it is easy enough to see where it is missing.
When one shamefacedly betrays the public trust by refusing to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth as required under Setion 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, what is that if not a lack of delicadeza? Worse, in the complaint leading to his impeachment, there is an outright suspicion that the Chief Justice did this because to follow the Constitution would reveal high-value assets and bank accounts with huge deposits.
Under Art. VIII, section 7 (3) of the constitution "[a] member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence." Would such a person as described in the provision allow mere letters filed by a counsel to change final and executory decisions?
Would a person of probity and delicadeza be suspected of using the judicial fund as his own personal expense account, charging to the Judiciary personal expenditures? Would such a person discuss with litigants cases pending with his Court? Would a person of delicadeza ignore the separation of powers by issuing a "status quo ante" order against the House of Representatives in an impeachment case?
Impeach the Chief Justice? If we do not, and especially if we cannot succeed in doing this simple act, let us forget about pretending that this country will change and will henceforth hew to the straight and narrow path. Forget, then, the Daang Matuwid which needs, as a minimum, magistrates with enough delicadeza to do only what is fitting and proper.
I have to agree with Western Samar Representative Mel Senen Sarmiento and Iloilo Representative Jerry Trenas, chairman of the House committee on good government and public accountability that this country must stop shedding tears over drug mules who are, and will still be, executed in China and elsewhere.
Congressman Sarmiento says: "Once they are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the government should stop interceding in their behalf at the expense of law-abiding Filipino taxpayers."
I agree. In fact, if we were thinking right, we would also have the death penalty if only for those who engage in the drug trade. The International trade in illegal drugs is something that this world will be better off without.
The last one executed in China had been doing his job of being a drug mule for some time before the Chinese finally caught up with him. What would we have had the Chinese do? Would we have a better world, if the Chinese did as our misguided Vice President asked of them – that they pardon the drug dealer as a Christmas gift to the Filipino people?
Please save us from such gifts. The only gift of drug dealers that I personally would accept is when they are in body bags.
The drug menace is serious. To the Chinese it is even more so since they claim that the European colonizers were the ones who made addicts of the Chinese.
Congressman Trenas says of the mule who was executed: "According to reports, he used to be a security guard in China but decided to resign from his job and become a full-time drug mule for the obvious reason that he did not want to work hard to earn a living."
These drug traffickers are not victims. They are willing criminals. At best, they are fools who are tricked into bringing drugs on their person after being told that what they are transporting are all perfectly legal for which they will be paid a huge sum not at all commensurate for the small favor they are doing.
For those who are mere fools, tears may be appropriate. For most of the mules, however, these are wasted tears for those that need no mourning
El origen de las grandes fortunos es la falta de delicadeza.
"‘Delicadeza’ is a Spanish derivative, which means a sense of propriety, sensitivity and responsibility to resign from a position of trust when proof is shown that the office holder has committed a violation of law or abuse of power." -- Bobby Mercado Reyes, A Pinoy Journalist in North America.
I would even suggest that delicadeza kicks in even when no proof has been shown.
No comments:
Post a Comment