THE jury selection in the US for criminal cases is one very crucial factor in both the prosecution and the defense.
Either side doesn’t want a member of the jury to be adverse to their cause, either he is neutral or one who is more likely “sympathetic.”
Any previous act that betrays a potential jury member’s neutrality, then that is a red flag and must be objected right away so he or she would be disqualified.
In other words, both sides take extra and special efforts to ensure an unbiased and impartial judge.
In the US, the judge merely “moderates” the proceedings and issues the necessary court processes but the members of the jury are the ones who issue the verdict of guilty or not guilty.
This is unlike in the Philippine setting where the judge “moderates” and issues the ruling.
* * *
This is not unlike that aspect in the impeachment trial where the senate court invited 4 jurists as amicus curiae or friends of the court.
An amicus is basically a person or group of persons that is not a direct part of a lawsuit but helps the judge by giving expert advice, legal information or a fresh viewpoint on a case.
To do this, an amicus must act in a fair and neutral way, their loyalty is to the truth and the court and not to one specific side in the lawsuit.
As applied to the impeachment trial of VP Sara, the impeachment court invited Justices Artemio Panganiban, Hilario Davide, Renato Puno and Adolf Azcona and solicited their views or opinions on the conviction threshold as provided in the constitution.
One might right away deduce that these jurists have been previously vetted by the senate as “fair and neutral” jurists to be able to demonstrate a helping hand in resolving the issue of what is really meant by “2/3 of all the members of the senate” as the magic number to convict VP Sara, considering that 4 senators have been unable to actively participate in the trial.
Hence, they were expected to dish out an objective, unbiased and impartial opinions on that particular subject.
The 3 jurists – Panganiban, Puno and Davide gave a “flexible”interpretation” on the belief that the required 2/3 should be flexible and based on the number of active, participating senator-judges rather than a strict mathematical formula of the entire 24-member body.
Justice Azcona held a more strict view or fixed interpretation and insisted that the provision “2/3 of all the members” should mean a literal “all” of the senators based on the senate’s full constitutional membership of 24 senators, regardless of their absences or non-participation in the trial.
Do the amicus pass the test of “fairness, impartiality or neutrality?”
Of course, that is for the senate to decide but presumably they passed because they were invited as such.
Now, let us share the observations of some sharp-eyed netizens.
Justice Panganiban was seen in the company of the first lady the same day that he was invited to speak as an amicus. That visible association with the first lady was considered as a dark patch on the optics of impartiality or neutrality.
He also previously wrote a column in the Philippine Star entitled “How do you solve a problem like Sara?” where the title itself already explains the whole commentary.
How about Davide? Well, he was quoted as saying before that Leni-Kiko was the best tandem in his years of voting since 1957 saying “they possess the spiritual, intellectual, ethical, moral and social values and virtues demanded of an authentic public servant.”
Puno and Azcona have been considered as neutral and have not been identified under any political party, though Azcona is credited as the principal author of Article XI of the Philippine Constitution on accountability of public officials which naturally gave him an added weight insofar as interpreting the meaning of the threshold of conviction.
And I agree completely because to my mind, “2/3 of all the members of the senate” should mean membership in the senate, not to participation in the senate trial.
Amen.
* * *
Meanwhile, daghan ang nagtuo nga kadtong mga tawo nga kugihan kaayo sa krusada kontra pangurakot, kontra sa mga pangdaog-daog ug pagdagmal sa isig-ka-ingon maoy mga tawo nga tarong, kasaligan ug modukot gyod sa gimbut-an sa balaod. Mga tawo nga matawag og ehemplo sa kaligdong ug tiunay nga mosunod sa balaod.
Apan, dili diay.
Mao na man hinuon ang moawhag sa mga katawhan karon nga ibale-wala ang balaod ug maoy hinungdan nga gitawag na karon og “bendalo.”
* * *
Sa wala pa mosulod sa pamolitika, hilabihan ang pagdayeg sa mga katawhan sa mga magsoon nga Tulfo, Raffy ug Erwin.
Paka-paka lang ang ilang mga birada sa radyo ug TV batok sa mga opisyales nga nagpabadlong, ilabi na gyod kadtong mga nagkugi sa pangurakot ug nanamastamas sa ilang isig-ka-ingon. Midagsang sa ilang krusada ang hilabihan ka-baga nga hut-ong sa katawhan kay ilang nakita nga kon sama sa ulod ka-hinay ang kagamhanan nga motagad sa ilang mga problema, sama sa kilat sab ka-dali ug ka-paspas ang lihok ug mahitabo kon ang mga Tulfo na maoy mobatikos sa mga opisyales. Matod pa, aksiyon agad kon i-Tulfo na ang maong problema.
Mao kini hinungdan nga wala maglisod ug gi-ubanan gyod sa kadaogan ang ilang kampanya sa politika tungod sa hilabihan ang pagsalig sa mga tawo kanila.
* * *
Apan mausab diay ang kinaiya, ug krusada, kon makalingkod na sa gahom. Dili na lang nato hisgotan ang mga eskandalo nga gi-piyestahan sa mga katawhan diin nagbansiwag gyod ang mga Tulfo, Raffy ug Erwin.
Na-ilado si Erwin Tuflo nga “bendalo” tungod sa iyang gipamulong sa senado nga adunay panahon nga angay “i-bend the law” ug dili kini masunod sa tanang panahon.
Susmariosep.
Lisora espilingon nga usa ka senador ug naila na nga “tarong” kunohay pero mao na man hinuon ang moawhag nga mahimo ra nga i-bale-wala ang balaod usahay?
Mogawas nga “optional” ang pagsunod sa balaod?
Tungod niini, daghan ang nangutana – wala ba kaha masayop ang mga misalig, ug mi-botar, kaniya sa senado?
* * *
Ang iyang igsoon nga senador nga si Raffy Tulfo nabaniog na sab karon, pasagdi na lang tong “vivamax scandal” kay wa nay labot dinhi, tungod sa iyang gitawag og “acquital by default.”
Matod pa ni Raffy, kon iapil sa mga senador nga mo-botar sa impeachment trial ni VP Sara sila si senador Marcoleta, Estrada ug dela Rosa bisan kon gi-preso sila o “missing in action,” mo-resulta kini sa gitawag og acquittal ni VP Sara tungod tungod lang kay absent o wala sila sa impeachment trial.
Ang iyang punto o gustong mahitabo, kadto lang naa karon sa impeachment trial ang maka-botar ug dili iapil sa ihap kadtong mga wala diha sama ni Marcoleta, Estrada, Dela Rosa ug Legarda.
Buot ipasabot nga gusto ni Raffy Tulfo nga usbon ang gimando sa Constitution nga 2/3 votes sa tanang miyembro sa senado ang gikinahanglan aron ma-konbikto si VP Sara. Ang naka-pait pa gyod, kay gusto niya usbon ang gimando sa Constitution pinaagi lang sa boto sa pipila ka mga senador.
Susmariosep.
Usbon nako ang pangutana sa unahan – wala kaha masayop ang mga katawhan nga misalig, ug mi-boto, ni Raffy Tulfo?
