Lady Justice takes a peek from behind blindfold

Juan Ponce Enrile is everything they say he is- brilliant, cool, suave, shrewd and calculating. Graduating cum laude from Ateneo for his Associate in Arts then again as cum laude from the University of the Philippines for his law degree, Senator Enrile passed the bar with a 91.72% rating and started practice with his father. Not long after, he was spotted by Ferdinand Marcos to handle his personal legal affairs.

The brilliant mind comes from the gene pool. His father, Alfonso, stood as a pillar of the Manuel Quezon administration and most likely the brain that propelled the Philippine independence.

I witnessed Juan Ponce Ensile’s amazing clarity a couple of times. Once in a budget hearing, he got the housing technocrats of the different agencies in a tizzy when he found inconsistencies in the numbers (remember these numbers are reviewed a number of times before submission). During the plenary, Senator Escudero questioned an application of a provision of a law and when it was his turn at the podium, Senator Enrile calmly started his response with “when I wrote the law…” that sent guffaws across the hall after which he earnestly proceeded to provide the answer, point by point that sufficiently and clearly covered the matter.

It is not hard to be awed by his presence. 

With sixty odd years as a bureaucrat in different capacities, it is not hard to imagine that he wrote half of the laws existing today. In the same vein, he probably interacted at one time or another with most people of influence and position in government including members of the Supreme Court (SC) and here lays the problem with his recent victory- attaining temporary freedom from incarceration. If the members voted on the basis of their relationship with Senator Enrile and not the letter of applicable laws, then there is probable liability because selective justice smacks of breach of trust. To my mind, there is more fault here than omitting things from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Accommodation sounds polite with which Justice Leonen in his dissent, described the general opinion penned by Justice Bersamin. 

Atty Eleazar Reyes dismissed the dissenting opinion saying it was irrelevant with the implementation of the general opinion. I cannot agree. It cannot end there.

How many members of the SC should have inhibited because at a certain point they worked with, worked for or owed Senator Enrile something? If that were the case, the Senator’s shrewdness and calculating trait paid off, for it certainly looks like the cashing in of markers. I happen to know that a justice used to closely work for a codefendant of Senator Enrile in the rebellion complex murder suit described as criminal case no.9010941 under the Regional Trail Court branch 103 in February 1990. That should have been enough to inhibit from the case even if he did not work directly on the specific case. How many others? Could the now general opinion have passed muster if those with some relation with the Senator inhibited?

I thank justice Leonen for the dissenting opinion which forwarded the ideals of equality along with Justices Sereno, Carpio and specially Perlas Bernabe, always a straight shooter who I have had the pleasure of meeting.

Justice should be blindfolded while the scale must weigh in measure of the law. Anything less throws us back to being a banana republic.