Reflections
The law may be cruel, but it is the law.
So goes the saying and this is accepted in the legal circles.
A reader criticized JPE for disallowing certain evidences in the impeachment proceedings like the Platinum privilege for CJ, as evidence in proving the lack of probity of the CJ. If the gentleman had followed it, the connection between the article and the evidence was far off; it was not simply a matter of evidence; it is the question of relevance. For those who understand logic, cause and effect, they must have understood it. Yes the question of truth is at hand, but logic understanding the ways of the cruel law must be understood.
As for Santiagos lecture, she is right. The prosecution was indeed haughty in backtracking and not pushing through with its l00 or so witness, and withdrawing 4 of the 8 articles. This did not only weaken the impeachment case, and indeed it was mayabang for them to have assumed that they have a strong case and preponderance of evidence: the ill gotten was rule out; the evidences from the bank may have been illegally obtained and may be disallowed?
And the question of withdrawal of some articles, is it not an act of amendment, that the case goes back to the Congress and they come back after a year. Indeed, the submission of the case may have been done in haste and the l88 who signed them had no chance to read them? Does this not prove the defense position? And the lecture was unnecessary for those who are bungling the case.
I am not for pro Enrile; I was an activist during the martial law days and he was the architect and you should admire him for his political adroitness. And in handling this impeachment trial, I am in deep respect admiration for his fairness, deep thinking, and understanding.
As for Myriam, remove the hysterics and shrill voice but understand what she is saying. Those who understand law, logic and argumentation will agree she is giving a top of the line lecture and deserves to be a justice at ICC.
Keep it up JPE, Sen MDS
