Category: justice

sanchez, the senate, and the supremes

not surprised that convicted rapist-killer antonio sanchez had his family lobbying hard for his release by whatever means.  plan A: win a grant of clemency from president duterte through the intercession of imeldific political ally, imelda marcos herself, among other luminaries, helped along by his former legal counsel, now presidential spokesman sal panelo’s FYI (for-your-info) to the bureau of pardons and parole (BPP).  but, of course, now that the shit has hit the fan, panelo and imee marcos (for imelda) say their offices are swamped by letters of request for this and that, and everything is simply forwarded / referred to the offices concerned.  really?  no sifting the grain from the chaff, the valid from the invalid, the bongga from the  basura?  walang due diligence?

plan B: avail of the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law that the good senators of the 15th congress so conveniently enacted in 2013, and in such ambiguous terms that even an unrepentant sanchez just might qualify, and he almost did, thanks also to the it-would-seem just-as ambiguous implementing rules and regulations (IRR) crafted by then DOJ sec, now detained senator, leila de lima and then DILG sec mar roxas.  in the first senate hearing DOJ sec menardo guevara didn’t beat around the bush:  the law is not clear and needs to be amended.  read Guevara wants GCTA law amended amid controversy.

Guevarra’s proposed amendments include a clear classification of whether the law should be on reformative and rehabilitative side, or punitive or retributive, and clear definition of “heinous crimes.”

“We came to a conclusion that the intent of the law was to exclude those convicted of heinous crimes, as well as habitual delinquents, escapists, recidivists. But that came only after a tedious and laborous harmonization of the various provisions of this law,” he said.

“Had it been clearly stated in one single provision — stand alone provision — that the benefits of this law shall not apply to these classes of people, then we’ll probably not have a conclusion such as what we have now,” he added.

so.  sino nga ba ang mga senador na ito ng 15th congress who are, at bottom, responsible for the crappy GCTA law.  philstar‘s jess diaz did the research and found that some senators who have been holding forth in the senate hearings, fuming now over the almost-release of sanchez, are among the law’s authors.  such as senators frank drilon, ping lacson, bong revilla, francis pangilinan, and tito sotto.  read ‘Expanded good conduct law was Senate idea’.

Senate Bill 3064 was contained in Committee Report No. 82, which the committee on justice and human rights, and the committee on constitutional amendments, revision of codes and laws submitted on Nov. 17, 2011.

The Senate version consolidated eight similar measures on counting the period of detention as part of a prison term and expansion of GCTA as provided in the Revised Penal Code.

The authors of the eight measures were then senators Manuel Villar Jr., Francis Escudero and Miriam Defensor Santiago.

Villar, Escudero, Santiago, and colleagues Loren Legarda, Antonio Trillanes IV, Franklin Drilon, Ramon Revilla Jr., Sergio Osmeña III, Francis Pangilinan, Aquilino Pimentel III, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Panfilo Lacson, Manuel Lapid, Alan Peter Cayetano, the late Joker Arroyo and Edgardo Angara, Jinggoy Estrada, Teofisto Guingona III and Vicente Sotto III signed Report No. 82.

the four who did not sign: then senate prez juan ponce enrile, senators gregorio honasan, ralph recto, and pia cayetano. it would be interesting to hear why not. did they think it was badly crafted?  did they perhaps foresee that the likes of the incorrigible antonio sanchez could take advantage of the ambiguities?  or did they share marcos sol-gen estelito mendoza’s opinion that the GCTA law undercuts sentences handed down by courts?

Mendoza told senators in Thursday’s hearing that the GCTA, a law enacted in 2013 to fast-track the release of well-behaved convicts and decongest the country’s jails, could create a constitutional crisis.

… “Once rendered, it ( a sentence) is not subject to change. It is immutable. It must be implemented and rendered as executed by the court,” said Mendoza..

“If the congress which grants excessive time allowance which undercuts the judgments of courts, that might be subject to constitutional question because of our basic principle of separation of powers,” said Mendoza.

read also philstar columnist alex magno’s Sloppy.

The good conduct time allowance law, being so sloppily crafted, allows bureaucrats a wide margin of discretion. That is, we know, always bad.

The vulnerability of any bureaucratic unit to corruption correlates with the width of the margin of discretion of its bureaucrats. This is why administrative reforms in the BIR and the Customs Bureau focus on reducing the margin of discretion and increasing transparency of transactions.

The badly crafted good conduct time allowance law, aggravated by even worse crafted implementing rules and regulations, is more than an invitation to corruption. It is an invitation to an orgy.

It is not surprising that early releases of prisoners have become commodities for sale to the highest bidders. The bigger the bribe, the more expeditious the processing.

clearly, sanchez was trying to buy his way to freedom, one crooked way or another, and without paying up the php12 million plus owed the sarmenta and gomez families, as ruled by the supreme court.  i wonder what the supremes have to say about that.

by the way, di ko gets ang prescriptive period of 10 years, which i am willing to assume is meant to favor the victims’ families – they shouldn’t have to wait longer than that? – but what if it turns out to favor instead the convicted rapist-killer who dares defy the supremes and refuses to pay?

di ko rin gets kung bakit hindi napilit, na-obliga, na-compel si sanchez na magbayad, never mind his continued protestations of innocence.  hindi daw siya, si kit alqueza daw ang mastermind sa pagpatay kay gomez; later, si allan jun sanchez daw, anak niyang kauuwi from london studies ang niregaluhan ng eileen, or so says mon tulfo who heard it first from a “prison official” na inuutangan daw ni sanchez para sa nurse who visited him regularly for his health na nabuntis daw niya.  yeah, it gets murkier and sleazier by the day.

so, whose responsibility was it to make sure that the supremes’ ruling was executed?  the executive branch?  or the judicial branch?  both of the above?  senator drilon is right: it is not for the DOJ to invoke the lapsed prescriptive period.  let the DOJ file a case and let the supremes decide.  i’d love to hear “prescriptive periods” defended when it works in favor of the convicted criminal instead.  i wonder what marcos sol-gen estelito mendoza would say about that.

and here’s hoping that former senator juan ponce enrile also weighs in; after all he was the senate prez when that slapdash slipshod law was passed.  and he sure could use the pogi points, too.

pepsi paloma and the senate president

The Internet is like quicksand. The more aggressively you fight to remove yourself from it, the deeper you’re going to sink down into it.
— John Oliver 

… Essentially, what John means is that asking news companies and tech companies to remove articles about yourself makes you more famous for not only those articles which you want to be removed but also for the fact that you want to have them removed. In this case, Sotto wanted to remove articles about his involvement in the rape of Pepsi Paloma but, in doing so, he launched more articles into the Internet.

so, what was tito sotto thinking when he recently asked inquirer.net to take down articles on the pepsi paloma rape case?

I am writing in relation to my earlier request to remove from your news website all the published articles implicating me in the alleged rape of Pepsi Paloma, particularly on the withdrawal of her case, that happened several decades ago. I believe there was malicious imputation of a crime against me.

apparently the request was first made sometime 2016…

Sotto said he has been asking the Inquirer to remove the article for over two years.

he was running for another term in the senate when in march he spoke up, finally, about the pepsi paloma case in a teleradyo interview.

“Hindi totoo ‘yan. Gimik yan ni Rey dela Cruz. (That wasn’t true. That was the gimmick of Rey dela Cruz.),” Sotto said

… Sotto, though he wasn’t involved in the alleged rape, was dragged into the controversy when he allegedly used his position in government to influence the court’s decision.

“It [alleged rape] happened in 1982. Eh 1988 ako naging Vice Mayor,” he told anchor Alvin Elchico on DZMM Teleradyo.

Sotto served as Vice Mayor of Quezon City before he was elected senator in 1992.

“In fact, Vic and Joey filed libel case against Rey dela Cruz. And there were reports in newspapers that time quoting Paloma and she said it’s not true,” Sotto said in Filipino.

“Kaya yang mga kumakalat sa Facebook, hindi totoo yan. Paninira lang mga yan. (Those [articles] circulating on Facebook, they’re false. They’re meant to malign me),” he added.

gimmick lang ng manager?  all just paninira?

he was re-elected, of course — eat bulaga! is a golden goose that lays golden eggs that the sotto brothers and joey de leon share generously with a gratefully adoring constituency who deliver the votes everytime: patronage politics, showbiz style.  two years later he sits as senate president, third highest post in the land, and he has asked inquirer, again, to take down the 3 articles.

To be specific, the following are the write-ups — with their corresponding publishing dates — I wish your company would delete:

The Rape of Pepsi Paloma by Rodel Rodis — March 05, 2014
Was Pepsi Paloma Murdered? By Rodel Rudis — March 15, 2014
Tito Sotto Denies Whitewashing Pepsi Paloma Rape Case by Totel V. de Jesus — March 03, 2016

These kinds of unverified articles have been negatively affecting my reputation for the longest time.  My efforts to clarify my side were somewhat ineffectual by reason of the afore-cited articles were shared by your readers to the social media, and those readers who knew nothing about the issue took them as version of truth considering that those reports came from a well-trusted company like Inquirer.net.

we might not even have heard about it — inquirer didn’t tell us the first time the request was made in 2016 — had not inquirer sent rodel rodis a copy of the senate prez’s may 29 letter that rodis posted on his facebook wall 15 june.

Sotto confirmed to Politiko that he has asked that the stories be removed because they were “libelous.”

“That issue was a rey dela cruz gimmick for soft drink beauties in 1982. I was not even involved. In fact i was not a public official then as alleged by the stories,” Sotto told Politiko in a text message.

june 19, rizal day, sotto sounded confident that inquirer would submit to his request and remove the articles.

That is the original fake news, so do not make a big deal out of it,” Sotto told reporters at the Senate on Monday.

Asked if he would file libel charges if Inquirer.net failed to remove the articles, he replied: “They will.”

Pressed to confirm if he meant the Inquirer would take down the stories, he reiterated that these were “fake news, it’s original fake news.”

so.  it would seem that the senate prez is denying all of it — no rape by vic joey and richie happened sometime july 1982, therefore there was nothing for him to make areglo, and he had nothing to do with pepsi’s death by hanging (some say by strangulation) 3 years after the rape that didn’t happen.  and he expects that inquirer will take down the articles just because he says it’s all fake news.

so.  we imagined it all?  including the public apology reported by the people’s journal on october 13?  but but but i have a “TV Junkie” column to show for it, published in Parade magazine (edited by fred marquez) soon after the apology:

Now that Pepsi has forgiven Vic, Joey, and Richie, it’s back to show business as usual for the three musketeers. How nice.

When the news of the rape case first broke… I expressed incredulity. I couldn’t believe that Vic and Joey were insane enough to jeopardize their careers for a momentary macho thrill.

On second thought I realized that Pepsi couldn’t have completely contrived the situation. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

Obviously, at some point in time, Vic & Co. got together with Pepsi & Co. Who set the meeting up and what occurred, we don’t know. Among other things, Pepsi & Co. claimed it was rape; Vic & Co. claimed it was a photo session.

I tried to follow the case closely but the major dailies treated it like backpage news. I had to be content with the skimpy reportage of afternoon tabloids.

There was mention of a missing Sulo waiter, a crucial witness, but no follow through. I wondered where he might be, what his story might be, and why we didn’t have snoopy reporters a la Lois Lane ferreting him out of hiding.

All through August and September the Sotto camp issued nothing but denials. Vic even had an alibi: he and brother Tito were at their mother’s house in Ermita at the time of the alleged rape.

And then the bomb. A letter of apology. An admission of guilt. Implicit. Unmistakable. “Dear Pepsi . . . We hope that you will not allow the error we have committed against you to stand as a stumbling block to that future which we all look forward to. We therefore ask you to find it in your heart to pardon us for the wrong which we have done against you. Sincerely…” (People’s Journal 13 October)

i even remember eat bulaga‘s post-apology special that was held in araneta coliseum.  it was supposed to be a test.  kung mapupuno nila ang coliseum, ibig sabihin ay napatawad sila ng madlang pipol.  and fill the big dome to the rafters they did.  the high point of the show was dina bonnevie’s surprise appearance, complete with a smack for hubby vic, to show the world that she too had forgiven him.  at least that’s the message i got.  

we didn’t really know much more about the rape case until 2004 when FPJ ran for president and hired tito sotto as campaign manager.  fundy soriano of People’s Tonight wrote in his “Talk Show” column:

HINDI nagkamali ang aktor na kandidatong pangulo na si FPJ sa pagkuha sa komedyanteng naging senador na si Tito Sotto bilang campaign manager dahil sanay na ito sa pag-areglo ng gusot na kinasangkutan ng mga taong malalapit sa kanya.

Hindi talaga nagkamali si Poe sa pagkuha kay Sotto dahil hasang-hasa na sa pagtatanggol at pagtutuwid ng mga sitwasyong baluktot.

Unang nasubukan ang galing ni Sotto noong Oct. 1982 nang pangunahan niya ang pag-areglo sa kasong rape na isinampa ng sexy stars na sina Pepsi Paloma at Guada Guarin laban sa kanyang kapatid na si Vic Sotto at mga kasamang sina Joey de Leon at Richie D’Horsie. Sa record ng kaso, nabulgar ang rape case nang lapitan ng ina ni Pepsi Paloma si Atty Rene Cayetano (ama ng senatorial candidate na si Pia Cayetano) para hingan ng tulong para makamtan ng kanyang anak ang katarungan na umanoy minolestiya ng tatlong host ng Eat Bulaga.

Nang nabatid na ikinakasa na ng naging senador na si Cayetano ang kaso sa piskalya ng QC, biglang naglaho ang tin-edyer na starlet na hindi nagtagal ay nabawi ng mga tauhan nina Col. Rolando Abadilla at Capt. Panfilo Lacson (yes, si Ping na kandidatong pangulo) ng MISG sa kamay ng kilalang hoodlum na si Ben Ulo. Umalingasaw ang pangalan ng mga Sotto nang aminin ni Ben Ulo na tauhan siya ng mga Castelo, maternal clan nina Tito at Vic.

Ayon kay Pepsi Paloma, umano’y mismong si Tito Sotto ang pumilit sa kanya na pirmahan ang affidavit of desistance para hindi matuloy ang kasong may parusang bitay. Tuluyang napigil ang pag-inog ng katarungan nang nagpakumbaba ang mga komedyante at naglabas ng public apology sa husgado kung saan inamin din ng mga ito ang nagawang krimen sa starlet na nagbigti ilang taon ang nakalipas dahil sa umano’y hindi pa rin nakalimutan ang kahalayang ginawa sa kanya ng mga artistang kabilang ngayon sa likod ng kandidatura ni Poe.  (May 8, 2004)

i found the above in an online exchange forum on the pepsi paloma rape case, posted by commenter no. 9.  i quoted it in enrile, sotto, pepsi #RH at the height of the RH debates in 2011.  the site has since been taken down, alas.  buti na lang na-copy-n-paste ko.  [it is also cited in former senator heherson alvarez’s blog]

i wonder if the senate prez really thinks he can erase all texts and images re the 1982 rape of pepsi paloma by the accused vic sotto joey de leon and richie d’horsie, as well as all the stories about how big brother tito, now the senate prez, made it all go away, how galing.  and he wasn’t even a vice-mayor, much less a senator, yet!

but rodis is right:

Rodel Rodis
16 June at 01:35 · The Inquirer.net announced that it has not yet made a decision on whether to accede to Senate President Sotto’s “request” to remove my March 2014 articles implicating him in the 1982 rape of then 14 year old Filipino American actress Pepsi Paloma and in her subsequent murder two years later. Stay tuned. If Sotto succeeds, then Jinggoy Estrada, Bongbong Marcos, Duterte and even China will make similar demands that my critical articles about them should also be removed from the Inquirer website.

ito naman ang sey ni fr. eliseo “jun” mercado on his facebook wall:

I, too, wonder what the Pepsi Paloma and Tito Sotto issue was all about. Unresolved rape case?

thanks to the revisionist attempts of the senate president himself, the pepsi paloma rape case has finally become a cause célèbre.  it even trended on twitter, LOL, and the senate should be concerned about its steadily deteriorating image.  i would think this calls for a senate investigation, no kidding.  some of the personalities mentioned, said to have known about the case, are still alive.  juan ponce enrile.  panfilo lacson.  guada guarin.  fundy soriano?

googled guada guarin and found this on pinoyparazzi.com by RK Villacorta who chanced upon her in late 2015:

Masama ang loob ni Guada sa ilang mga taga-media na inungkat pa ang na isinampa nila na kaso noon ni Pepsi almost 35 years ago. “Tapos na yun, nag-public apology na sila sa amin,” kuwento ni Guada na ngayon ay isang spa manager.

too bad cayetano and abadilla are no longer with us.  but i sure would like to hear from JPE and ping lacson.  just to see whose side they’re on.

marvic leonen: quo warranto “a legal abomination”

I DISSENT.

This Petition should have been dismissed outright and not given due course. It does not deserve space in judicial deliberation within our constitutional democratic space. Even if the Chief Justice has failed our expectations, quo warranto, as a process to oust an impeachable officer and a sitting member of the Supreme Court, is a legal abomination. It creates a precedent that gravely diminishes judicial independence and threatens the ability of this Court to assert the fundamental rights of our people. We render this Court subservient to an aggressive Solicitor General. We render those who present dissenting opinions unnecessarily vulnerable to powerful interests.

Granting this Petition installs doctrine that further empowers the privileged, the powerful, and the status quo.

A better reading of the Constitution requires us to read words and phrases in the context of the entire legal document. Thus, the general grant of original jurisdiction for quo warranto actions to this Court in Article VIII, Section 5(1) should be read in the context of the provisions of Article XI, Sections 2 and 3 , as well as the principles of judicial independence and integrity inherent in a constitutional order implied in Article VIII, Sections 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the Constitution.” G.R. 237428, Republic v Sereno, Leonen J. dissenting.

from cj puno to cj sereno #lookback

cj sereno’s quick rise to the judiciary’s highest post in 2012 was far from auspicious, coming as it did on the heels of the ignominiously controversial impeachment and conviction of her immediate predecessor, cj renato corona, in 2011.

and then, again, the reverse might also be true:  that pNoy’s appointment of sereno was auspicious because it was a matter of righting a wrong — the corona appointment by outgoing prez gloria arroyo was a (post)midnight appointment, expressly prohibited by the constitution; it was for incumbent prez benigno aquino III to appoint the replacement of cj reynato puno who was due to step down may 17 2010.

(Article 7, Section 15) “Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.”

katatapos ng may 10 2010 elections, obvious winner na si pNoy, pero presidente pa si gloria, when on may 12 she appointed corona sc chief justice — ni hindi pa bakante ang posisyon — with the backing of the puno supreme court, no less (even if puno himself abstained), and some very powerful figures in legal and political circles.

it was the culmination of a scheme initiated as early as december 2009 by arroyo diehard, rep matias defensor, so the backstory goes.  read marites danguilan vitug’s Inside the JBC: The appointment of the Chief Justice in 2010.  

Those who rallied for the appointment of a Chief Justice despite the ban during the election period stood on shaky ground. Their main argument hinged on an imagined scenario that revolved on a forthcoming novel experience. With the country’s first-ever automated polls, they foresaw confusion and a deluge of election protests that would eventually reach the Supreme Court. It was important, therefore, to have a Chief Justice to preside over the resolution of these contentious cases.

more than a decade earlier, says marites, cj andres narvasa was faced with the same kind of pressure but he withstood it.

Chief Justice Andres Narvasa refused to convene the JBC to fill up a vacancy on the Court because it fell during the appointments ban. He fiercely stood his ground despite pressure from Malacañang.”

unfortunately, cj puno was (is?) made of different stuff.

In March … In a 9-1 vote, the Court decided to exempt itself and the rest of the judiciary from the appointments ban. President Arroyo could appoint the next Chief Justice.

so accommodating of cj puno, diba? making an exception for arroyo, on such flimsy grounds, when an acting chief justice would have done as well during the transition.

what if

what if puno had done a narvasa instead.  what if he had stood firm about following the constitution?  he would have saved nation the aggravation and expense (!) of the corona impeachment and trial and, even, this whole sereno shebang.  i guess it tells us whose side former cj puno was really on then, and whose side he’s really on now, as he shepherds the crafting of a draft constitution.  (gma, is that you?)

matakot tayo.  magtanong tayo.  ano ba talaga ang agenda ni ex-cj puno?  who / what convinced him to be part of this scheme to sell charter change and federalism as the solution to all our problems, which are legion and complicated.  does it not bother him that many think him a sad sell-out?  is he?  pa-executive session executive session pa ang consultative commission (just heard it on dzmm).  what’s all the secrecy all about?  what do they think they’re cooking up.  other than more chaos and anarchy, mabuhay ang elite rule?

what if cj puno had insisted, first, on an intense multi-media information campaign, and shown some semblance of taking the time to listen to and discuss with the people.  twould  be great to have a national conversation about this.  and it’s what we need.

but back to cj impeachments  

if puno had not played along with arroyo, and if arroyo had not appointed corona cj when she did, then pNoy would have had to choose from a list that could not have yet included sereno dahil i-a-appoint pa lang niya ito as associate justice in august 16 2010.

malamang ay napilitan si pNoy to choose from the eminently more qualified and next-in-line, and the supremes might not now be so restive and vulnerable to political nudges from left right and center, what a shame.

which brings me to the 2012 sereno appointment and the perception that it was a good, an auspicious, beginning, because a matter of righting a wrong.  i have a real problem with this.

the wrong done was the midnight appointment, the wrong was done by president arroyo with the complicity of cj puno and the supremes.  BUT the wrong found and for which corona was punished — undeclared wealth — had nothing to do with the midnight-appointment itself that was a brazen violation of the constitution.

bakit ganoon ang nangyari?  because no one dared take gma to court?  or it was easier, took less courage, if a lot of money, to find fault with corona, anything that would get him out of the way?

in my final analysis, corona was faulted and removed for accepting the arroyo appointment — he could have said no, it was against the constitution, he’d take his chances with the new prez.  ironically enough, sereno too might well be faulted and removed for accepting the aquino appointment — she could have said no, she was too young, she had no court experience.

neither anticipated that their SALNs would be under scrutiny.  after all, according to senator rene saguisag who helped craft the law, violation of the SALN law was NOT an impeachable offense until the enrile senate sitting as an impeachment court dared declare it so in the 2011 trial.

in any case, pareho lang si corona at si sereno, it would seem.  and she, too, deserves her day/s in court, let the chips fall where they may.

at itigil na please ang quo warranto eklat na iyan, mr. solicitor-general.  nagmamalinis naman masyado ang duterte admin.  after six months of impeachment hearings in the lower house that practically tore apart the cj, let s/he who is without sin cast the next stone.  i would so like to meet him  and shake his hand.