Great job by LRA’s Diaz

# 76

That is the difficult part about this exercise, trying to decide based only on the facts, not on personalities. In other words, based on the same set of facts proven in court, will I convict or acquit, without the extraneous factor of my considering that the guy is associated with Goyang, etc.

I have difficulty myself, because I have little respect for the litigation experience, if any, of the guy. He was a Goyang yes man, and a legal lightweight. That is like George Bush Jr. appointing Harriet Myers. She was laughed off the nomination seat; here, the JBC stooges shepherded Corona through the nomination process.

So to keep only the facts in play, in my mind, without the extraneous baggage, I pretend that the person on the dock is one I respect. I tell myself, imagine if it were Justice Jose Benedicto Luna Reyes (JBL) on the dock, lynched (impeached) by Macoy stooges. Would I convict?

Maybe that is too loaded for acquittal, because, I, and all lawyers and law professors I know (Haydee Yorac, Justice Irene Cortes, etc.) are all fans of JBL.

So I imagine it is a man whose writing I respect, but about whose personal life I know little of. Suppose it were Justice Alejo Labrador on trial. Would I convict or acquit on the same set of facts proven at the trial?

Yung hindi man abogado? Imagine if it were Steve Jobs on the hot seat. Or imagine if it were Sergei Brin of Google. Would you convict or acquit on the same set of facts?

Can we do it? Adopt the cold neutrality of a judge? If we cannot, and continue to look at personalities (that includes yung away ng mga Basa, and Sister Flory), then lady justice is not blindfolded – because she knows who is on the hot seat.

Many “experts”, including the guy who cut the Bible with the Hilarious divided, say only judges can do it, not political officials like the senators. But ordinary people do it every day, in the United States, when they are called to jury duty. Kano na naman, somebody will say. Well the Hong Kong people also employ the jury system; same is true for Mother Spain.

And if the argument is only that political officials cannot be cold and impartial, because of their professional experience, that is belied by history. Many of the great justices of the United States came from the political branches – CJ Charles Evans Hughes, who laid down the doctrine of clear and present danger in Near v. Minnesota was former governor of New York, . So was Earl Warren (governor of California). Earl Warren steered the Court to most of the liberal rulings that are stock legal realities now; including Miranda (you have the right to remain silent….).

Frank Murphy, another great liberal, was former governor of Michigan, and former governor general of the Philippines. Kaya may Murphy Cubao. I hope they do not rename it.

So I do not think that it is impossible for the senators to try to decide, only on the facts, and not on extraneous factors, like “excessive entanglements” with Goyang (the phraseology used in one of the articles of impeachment).

About the audience, that is a little iffy; even if there is contrary experience in the US and Hong Kong. In fact, I think that is what the prosecution hopes for. That the audience will immature enough to decide on prejudices not on the facts, and only on the facts proven at trial. They hope to generate a groundswell with all the extraneous revelations 45 pieces of property, etc.

I am not alone in not trusting the noisy gallery. Singapore abolished its jury system in 1969.

As Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew described to the BBC and in his memoirs, due to his experiences as a trial lawyer, “I had no faith in a system that allowed the supersitition, ignorance, biases, and prejudices of seven jurymen to determine guilt or innocence.“

Will the senators rise to the occasion, like Charles Evans Hughes, Earl Warren, and Frank Murphy? I do not trust; I can only hope.

Hindi naman in play yang paratang na midnight appointee. Inatras nga.

So hindi maaaring maging basehan ng pasya ng Senado ang pagka-midnight appointee.

Kung gustong isalang uli, maybe Tupas can file a motion to withdraw the withdrawal, better phrased as motion to reinstate Article 1.

Ang sagot sa katanungan mo ay makikita sa decision ng Kataas-Taasang Hukuman sa kaso ng Hacienda Luisita, dito:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_171101_2011.html

Ang sumusunod na salaysay ng mga pangyayari (narration of facts) ay hango ni Presbitero Velasco sa Memorandum mismo ng Hacienda Luisita.

At the core of the case is Hacienda Luisita de Tarlac (Hacienda Luisita), once a 6,443-hectare mixed agricultural-industrial-residential expanse straddling several municipalities of Tarlac and owned by Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas (Tabacalera). In 1957, the Spanish owners of Tabacalera offered to sell Hacienda Luisita as well as their controlling interest in the sugar mill within the hacienda, the Central Azucarera de Tarlac (CAT), as an indivisible transaction. The Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco), then owned and/or controlled by the Jose Cojuangco, Sr. Group, was willing to buy. As agreed upon, Tadeco undertook to pay the purchase price for Hacienda Luisita in pesos, while that for the controlling interest in CAT, in US dollars.

To facilitate the adverted sale-and-purchase package, the Philippine government, through the then Central Bank of the Philippines, assisted the buyer to obtain a dollar loan from a US bank. Also, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) Board of Trustees extended on November 27, 1957 a PhP 5.911 million loan in favor of Tadeco to pay the peso price component of the sale. One of the conditions contained in the approving GSIS Resolution No. 3203, as later amended by Resolution No. 356, Series of 1958, reads as follows:

That the lots comprising the Hacienda Luisita shall be subdivided by the applicant-corporation and sold at cost to the tenants, should there be any, and whenever conditions should exist warranting such action under the provisions of the Land Tenure Act;

Ang pambayad sa sugar mill na dollar ay inutang sa banko sa America, sa tulong ng gobyerno ng Pilipinas. Ang pambayad sa lupa ay galing sa GSIS.

Wala sinasabing babayaran ng Hacienda Luisita ang pera ng GSIS, kundi ipamamahagi ang lupa sa mga taong nagsasaka.

Sa makatuwid, ang layunin ng gobyerno ay ipamahagi ang lupa sa magsasaka, at tulungan ang Hacienda sa parteng industrial, yung pag-aari ng sugar mill, na gigiling ng tubo, para gawing asukal. Ang industrial ay para sa negosyante (Jose Cojuangco), at ang lupa ay sa nagsasaka.

Maraming nagsasabing hindi naman responsable ang magsasaka, at ibebenta rin ang lupa. Maaaring totoo yan; ngunit ang layunin ng gobyerno noon ay tulungan ang negosyante at magsasaka, sa isang iglap.

Hindi ginawa yon, kaya nagdemanda ang gobyerno noong 1980, at naipanalo naman sa mababang hukuman (RTC). Ngunit nang naluklok si Cory, sa halip na ipagtanggol ng Sol Gen (Sedfrey Ordonez) ang decision ng hukuman ay iniatras ang kaso ng gobyerno. Ang trabaho ng Sol Gen ay ipagtanggol ang decision ng mga mababang hukuman sa mataas na hukuman.

Ngayon, yung sold at cost (1958 prices), ay naging sold at 1989 prices, base sa decision ng nakararami, sa Kataas-Taasang Hukuman.

Ang gusto ng Hacienda, at inayunan sa dissenting opinion ni Maria Lourdes Sereno, ay sa presyong 2006.

My problem with the decision of the majority is that the CARP impaired the contract of the GSIS vis-a-vis the Hacienda Luisita, in violation of Section 10 of the Bill of Rights, prohibiting the passing of laws that impair the obligation of contracts. The CARP law forced the GSIS to accept a modification of its contract with Hacienda Luisita, that land will be distributed at cost.

Another issue, which the Supreme Court did not consider:

Did the Sol Gen have the authority to withdraw the case? True, the Sol Gen speaks for the government, and true, the government (GSIS) was the contracting party. But when the right has vested in the beneficiary (farmers), the right cannot be waived without the consent of the beneficiary.

Vested na ang right ng mga magsasaka, noong nagbayad ang GSIS. So, if I were lawyering for them, I would have asked for a writ of execution from the RTC, since the withdrawal of the Sol Gen was null and void. Yan sana ang ginawa, sa halip na maki-argue on the basis of the CARP.

So may appeal sa Supreme Court ang Hacienda, at may writ of execution ang RTC. Mas maganda sana ang naging bakbakan, when the cases get consolidated.

The Hacienda wants the case reconsidered? Ewan ko lang kung may mag-flip-flop at i-reconsider ang 1989 price to make it 1958.

Be careful what you pray for; it may be granted.