So Much for Due Process: 25 July

Through the Eyes of a Foreigner

By Andrew Engel: Mindanao Times Thursday 25 July 2011

So Much for Due Process

Mayor Sara Duterte’s incident with the Sheriff continues to get significant column space around the country, but an editorial in Philippine Daily Inquirer on Monday 18 July caught my eye.

The editorial line expressed concerned about the possibility that sanctions might not eventuate.  The author was fretful; to quote “greatly disturbed,” by this possibility and later “disappointed” and “wary” when it was learnt from “sources” that the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) would recommend charges.

(I don’t favour the over use of adverbs to aid a perfectly good adjective but the emphasis intended in being “greatly disturbed” became clearer as I read on.)

The central theme seemed to be the argument that it would be wrong if a case was not brought and the implicit sentiment was that the DILG would be derelict in its duty if this eventuated.  The editorial went on to make a convoluted point about the absence of a complaint not obviating the requirement for charges, which at one level is true, but at another level, erroneous.

At this point the editorial was partially arguing the need for due process, the basic idea of fairness under the law, even though the tone suggested the author was predisposed to say more by suggesting the DILG must act, inferring the author of the editorial knew better than the DILG. 

As I read on I hit the following sentence:

 “To let her act go unpunished is to prove that the law does not apply to the powerful”.

And there it was, the opinion that the Mayor was culpable, already judged and found guilty, and that punishment was in order. 

In an editorial that basically promotes the notion of the sanctity of the law or more accurately, legal processes, that’s a breathtaking departure from the law’s conventions. On the one hand to argue for legality and in the next breath to flout the process is rich indeed.

Additionally, are we meant to accept that this relatively minor incident is a test of the equality of the law, when much worse occurs every day?

And by stating the Mayor’s actions “cannot be justified” the editorial dispenses with mitigation as an integral part of any consideration by those who have the appropriate authority to look at the matter. 

It is difficult to swallow an argument for adherence to the law when its fundamental precepts are being trampled sentence after sentence.

Of course, we also get a line taking the high moral ground by saying that the Sherriff’s human rights had been abused. I’m sure the folks in Agdao would agree wholeheartedly when it comes to the matter of human rights.  But then they don’t get a mention or a voice, do they; or do they?

In this case they actually did, in the form of one young female Mayor.  She spoke for them and millions of others who are frequently disenfranchised under the law and face discrimination because of their socio-economic status. It was a proverbial scream in the night with symbolic value far beyond the literal. 

To quote Gandi who said it as well as anyone, “An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so”.

But, in the eyes of this editorial line, she abused her position of power and ipso facto must be punished otherwise the law fails in its duty.

And here’s the rub for this line of reasoning.

She didn’t exercise or abuse power in the traditional sense it occurs in the Philippines.

She put her own power at risk!

She did so for people who could offer nothing and she stood to gain nothing.

She did so in circumstances that were unique and testing, where lives and safety were at risk, and in the immediate aftermath of an unfolding human tragedy in the city.

That’s mitigation, and should wrong doing be found after the full facts are weighed, if indeed a case is even considered appropriate (again by those who have the jurisdiction), moderation of any sanction would not only be arguable, it would likely serve justice.

Pictures don’t lie, but they also don’t necessarily convey meaning. The law seeks to find meaning and justice in its rulings.  It is not based on rumour or innuendo, and it dispenses with unfounded suggestions, as contained in the editorial, that the Sherriff himself is somehow too threatened to file a complaint: a supposed truth based on assumption and a founded on a conspiracy theory. (You will also find there is a law against defamation, if the truth of the assertion cannot be established.)

On any scale, Inday Sara’s alleged offence for all the shock value involved is relatively minor in the middle of an act that was arguably a greater offence.  More to the point it occurred under a system where justice is not dispensed equally, where it is common knowledge that money, power or influence subverts the system.

So please, let’s get things in proportion.  Let those working in an imperfect system do their best without predetermining outcomes. Let the matter be put into context where the events, the antecedents at work, and the deeper and wholly more meaningful messages and lessons to be learned from this incident, get a just hearing.

And please enough of the hyperbole.  Can anyone truly use the words human rights in relation to the Sherriff’s bruised eye and give it equal status to a thousand more serious examples of crimes against humanity and not be embarrassed. 

Let’s not be “greatly dismayed” over technical interpretations, there are plenty of important issues to describe, more than enough for a squadron of superfluous adverbs to prop–up the available adjectives. 

Finally, let us all allow the process to take its course before jumping to premature conclusions. That is one brick, along with many others, that will help build the foundations of a working and robust legal system.

After all, the Mayor also has legal rights.  She is entitled to expect fairness and due process, and trial by media is not the way.

(Comment or write to Andrew at engelmint@hotmail.com)