Thinking Pinoy: #BangkoSerye: Impeachment after Sampalan sa BPI Julia Vargas? (Part 4 of 4)

May 5, 2016

#BangkoSerye: Impeachment after Sampalan sa BPI Julia Vargas? (Part 4 of 4)

In #BangkoSerye: Impeachment after Sampalan sa BPI Julia Vargas? (Part 1 of 4), TP detailed what transpired in BPI Julia Vargas. TP ended that article with a promise of an analysis in Part 2.

In #BangkoSerye: Impeachment after Sampalan sa BPI Julia Vargas? (Part 2 of 4), TP explained that Duterte’s SALN waiver covers all of Trillanes’ accusations. Thus, inaction from the AMLC and the Ombudsman implies the falsehood of Trillanes' accusation.

In #BangkoSerye: Impeachment after Sampalan sa BPI Julia Vargas? (Part 3 of 4), TP played the “What if I am Duterte” game by examining Trillanes’s and Panelo’s statements, and evaluating the events in BPI Julia Vargas. TP stopped midway through point number 6.

In this final article of the Impeachment series, TP will continue where we left off. Let TP put the Duterte hat on again.

Sampalan sa BPI Julia Vargas (continuation)

Sixth, BPI asked for 4 to 7 days to comply, and you accused me of delaying tactics.
Ako ba ang nagsulat ng company policies ng BPI?  Buang na ‘to.
Seventh, you wanted me to address the entire P2.4 billion allegation.
You provided an affidavit that clearly shows hearsay, you have shitty evidence, you have filed no court case, and despite all that, you want a complete answer? Gago ka ba? Baka mamaya, hanggang pagkamatay ng mga dinosaur e isisi mo pa sa akin, at ako pa hihingan mo ng ebidensiya to prove otherwise. Bobo ka na, ang kapal pa ng mukha mo. Natawag ka pa naman senador samantalang ang batas e di mo alam.

Resign from the Senate for your own good. You know nothing about the law.

Eighth, using a shitty piece of paper as evidence and hearsay as testimony, any court of law would have easily dismissed your accusations for lack of merit.
Sonny, you will argue that I didn’t prove anything in BPI Julia Vargas.
Maybe you’re right. But if your allegations were true, the Ombudsman and AMLC would be guilty of criminal negligence for failing to investigate those excesses, even if they had the all the bank information with them for years [Revised Penal Code, Art. 208].

Accusing me of such crimes is the same as accusing Conchita Carpio Morales and every person in AMLC of dereliction of duty. You surely don’t want that, do you?
No, Sonny, there will be no impeachment.

Better luck next time, gago. Mas tuso ako sa iyo.

Rights under the Constitution

It’s time to take off the Duterte hat.

In BangkoSerye, the fundamental issue is not corruption. Instead, it is the people’s right to information. That is, the people (Duterte’s political opponents, their supporters, and sway voters) want Duterte to recognize their constitutional right to know the truth [Art. III Sec. 7].

However, given last week’s developments, it appears that in the process of enforcing the right to information, Trillanes – along with the Filipino People – were amenable to trampling on at least five (5) of Duterte’s constitutional rights.

First, the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures [Art. III Sec. 2]
Assuming authenticity of documents, Trillanes used extrajudicial (i.e. illegal) means to acquire -- to search and seize (obtain) -- that information, squarely violating this right.
Second, the constitutional right to privacy of communication [Art. III Sec. 3]
Assuming authenticity of documents and without the issuance of a court order, Trillanes clearly violated this right, as the bank documents are a form of communication between Duterte and BPI.
Third, the constitutional right against self-incrimination [Art. III Sec. 17]
The rules of court demand burden of proof from the accuser, and this constitutional right is one of its justifications. Trillanes, despite being the accuser and despite the spurious evidence, wants Duterte to show evidence that may incriminate Duterte.
Fourth, the constitutional right to due process [Art. III Sec. 14(1)].
Trillanes, along with the public, demanded that Duterte answer his allegations even without the issuance of orders from courts, the Ombudsman, the Sandiganbayan, or the AMLC. What’s worse, none of Duterte’s presidentiable opponents called out this travesty.
Fifth, the constitutional right to presumption of innocence [Art. III Sec. 14(2)].
And most importantly, it appears that everyone has pre-judged Duterte’s guilt based on unauthenticated documents released by a Senator with a shady reputation. It’s bad enough that he was assumed guilty until proven innocent, but justifying that unconstitutional presumption using questionable grounds makes it even worse.

5 for 1?

Trampling on five rights for the sake of one: is this the kind of bargain that we Filipinos are willing to make?

Hindi ba tayo lugi no'n?

One of the most popular criticisms against Duterte is his alleged disregard for the rule of law. His opponents Roxas, Poe, and Binay, along with their supporters, have consistently milked these allegations for greater political mileage, presumably claiming that they stand on higher moral ground. That is, they claim to follow the rule of law while Duterte does not.

However, in a desperate bid to win the presidency, these three presidential candidates – Poe, Roxas, and Binay -- condone blatant violations of five constitutional rights just to "defend" one.

Poe, Roxas, and Binay shamelessly disregarded the rule of law to "uphold" the rule of law.

Ano raw?

Grace, Mar, and Jojo, if you claim to be on higher moral ground, then you better be sure that you stay on it.

Let me quote a part of NCCA Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles’s statement issued after the BPI Julia Vargas affair:
I was right. The world has gone mad. We have a bloodthirsty mob asking a man to provide evidence of his own guilt. We have a so-called senator hurling an accusation then REQUIRING the alleged accused to prove his innocence. And in the heat of election fever very few people see what the fuck is wrong with that. Tangina.

Is it any wonder then, why the powerless see this candidate as their savior?
Ironically, Duterte took the higher moral ground: he ignored the violation of his rights, just to be able to respect the Filipinos’ singular right to know.

In BPI Julia Vargas, Duterte waived five of his rights just so he can recognize one of ours.

If that isn’t statesmanship, then I don’t what else it could be.

You should give the old man some credit for that. (TP)

Did you like this post? Help stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!