A triumph of justice and the rule of law?
Being the first public official who stood up against the former President on the issue of corruption and abuse of power, disobeying and then exposing his unlawful commands and directives, which eventually led to his impeachment and ouster from office, I am glad that the trial of Joseph E. Estrada for plunder is over.
Since the much-awaited verdict of the Sandiganbayan came down, I received numerous messages from friends—who were aware of the difficult times I went through risking my life and the safety of my family in proclaiming the truth against President Estrada—essentially asking me whether I felt relieved and perhaps enjoying a sense of triumph that justice and the rule of law has prevailed with the Court's decision.
But far from enjoying a sense of satisfaction I have serious doubts that justice has triumphed and the rule of law has prevailed in this case.
As to whether or not Mr. Estrada considers the Court's decision to be just is a matter that he and his high-caliber panel of lawyers must evaluate under the umbrella of options available to him: to reconsider the decision of the Sandiganbayan, to appeal to the Supreme Court, accept a pardon if granted to him by the President or, last but not the least, bravely face the consequences of his conviction.
While I pray that the former President will find the justice he deserves, I seek justice for the Filipino people, the real victims of the devastating effects of large-scale corruption, which continue to be ruthlessly perpetrated and for which there seem to be no end.
The Sandiganbayan refers to the hundreds of millions of pesos as "mind- boggling" sums received by Erap as commissions from "jueteng lords" in return for the protection of their illegal gambling operations. Yet, this amount pales in comparison with the P3 billion reported to have been received by President Estrada for the sale of PLDT shares to facilitate the disregard of our Securities Law and the disclosure rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission in less than two months after he assumed office. Why was there no interest in investigating and prosecuting the former President for this very serious offense, when there is no dispute that the sale brokered by Estrada's former adviser and financial genius, Mark Jimenez, took place? Besides, the paper trail of the stock purchase could have easily proven whether or not "the more mind-boggling" sums of commissions were paid. Was it because prominent members of the business community and other influential personalities now close to the powers that be might have also been involved?
Why has not the former President been investigated and prosecuted for his involvement as a principal player in the biggest stock market fraud in our history, known as the "BW Scandal," which caused the virtual collapse of the Philippine Stock Exchange? Could it be because we want the other big fishes routinely involved in insider trading and stock manipulation to get away in exchange for political favors?
Unless we have the will to confront the causes why the Philippines lags far behind our more progressive Asian neighbors and learn instructive lessons from these causes, we can never be liberated from our mistakes or take off from our underdevelopment.
Many Erap supporters have protested that his conviction was politically motivated, yet our being fearfully selective in prosecuting him for crimes committed while in office does not uphold the rule of law and only lends credence to such protests.
While I believe that the conviction of Erap would be impossible without convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt, we could not deny the fact that the trial stems from the political motivation of his impeachment and removal from office. And should Erap's fate end in pardon granted by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for the sake of national unity, then his freedom and relief from the punishment for plunder would also be politically motivated.
Seen in this light, it is evident that the verdict on the former President has not produced the spark that would have rekindled the flame of justice that has long died out in the hearts of many Filipinos.
For the rule of law to prevail, the law must be uniformly applied to all, regardless of social status. Anyone who acts above the law loses any moral authority to invoke the rule of law in justifying the curtailment of the legitimate protests of the real victims who still suffer in anguish and desperation, against the continued abuse of power by the highest officials of the land.
Indeed, our (graft) laws are primarily intended to protect the people from the abuses of those in power. And when the masses rally in the streets to declare their objections to these improprieties and unlawful acts they serve to remind all of us that the welfare of the people, which is the supreme law, must rule.
(Yasay received the EDSA People Power Freedom Award for undaunted courage as a key witness in the impeachment trial of President Estrada, and is currently a visiting professor of law at the Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii, in Honolulu.)