It’s interesting to note that the 7 justices (from out of 11 who concur) who voted for Arroyo’s release - Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo de Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Mariano C. del Castillo, Jose P. Perez and Jose C. Mendoza, are the same 7 justices who voted for Enrile’s release, all are appointees of former President Arroyo. [3]
According to the source, more or less, these Supreme Court justices are the same people who voted for releasing 20% of sequestered San Miguel shares to Eduardo “Danding” M. Cojuangco Jr. justified in the ponencia that there was no proof that Mr. Cojuangco was a Marcos crony, despite the fact that Mr. Cojuangco was so tied up with Marcos’ interests that he rode on the same plane that took the Marcoses to Honolulu in 1986. Mr. Cojuangco hastily sold these shares to Ramon S. Ang, his partner.
Raised by former Philippine President and a classmate of former US President Bill Clinton at Georgetown University, Arroyo had been a senator and Vice President before her instantaneous election to the presidency in 2001 after then President Joseph Estrada was expelled in a “people power” revolt that she helped lead. Estrada was charged of plunder after, for which he was found guilty, sentenced to life in jail in September 2007 but Arroyo pardoned him only 6 weeks after, in October 2007.
Arroyo made it to the presidency in regular elections in 2004, but her administration was stormed by a chain of corruption and vote-rigging scandals on the following year, including wiretapped conversations with an election official, which allegedly put her on her winnability.
Detailed below are the concurring and dissenting opinions concerning former Pres. Arroyo’s alleged plunder case, for your viewpoints and opinions:
COMPARATIVE VERSIONS OF STATEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE RELEASE OF FORMER PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO FROM THE ALLEGED MISUSE OF P366 MILLION PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES (PCSO) FUND
|
Pres. Duterte’s Eagerness to Pardon Former Pres. Arroyo
Versus Former Pres. Aquino’s Legal Pursuit
| |
The former president expressed her most profound gratitude to President Rodrigo Duterte for allowing due process to take its course.
|
Duterte during the campaign had told Arroyo in a phone conversation that he would pardon the former president which the latter rejected, saying this would entail an admission of culpability.
|
Former first gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo was elated and grateful of God claiming that the tormenter took away six years of his wife’s life who is an innocent woman.
|
It can be recalled that throughout his six-year term, Aquino highlighted the irregularities that had taken place during the nine-year Arroyo administration and never missed an opportunity to bash her, blaming her for the country’s problems.[4]
|
COMMENTARY
If Mrs. Arroyo and her husband were grateful of God, claiming of innocence, then what was the basis of misused P365 million Philippine Charity Sweepstakes (PCSO) Fund, because if the accuser says otherwise, definitely one of them whether lawyer or non-lawyer is not telling the truth.
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (Exodus 20:16).
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God, in vain. You shall not swear falsely by my name, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the Lord (Leviticus 19:12)
If the core of Aquino’s thought on arresting Arroyo was out of anger than the reality, brought by alleged ordering of the distribution of the Cojuangco-owned Hacienda Luisita to its farmers by then Chief Justice Corona and Arroyo, [5] which the Aquinos have farmed, managed and profited since the 1950s, and aspire to keep the rights to the land (while the over 6,000 farmer beneficiaries and their families sought to assert their rights to the land, by virtue of the original deed and conditions for awarding the land to the Cojuangcos and in line with the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in November 2011), then Supreme Court’s ruling is justified.
However, if the basis of former President Aquino’s decision to detain her comes from the mixture of anger from the controversial ordering of the distribution of the Cojuangco-owned Hacienda Luisita to its farmers and Arroyo’s punishable act, then the taxpayers are still grateful because at least the other side of anger is the truth that has to be exposed.
But
if the act of arresting Arroyo (which detained her for 4 years of humiliation,
tainted integrity) is baseless, then justice
simply took its course when the tribunal freed here.
Conversely, if the Supreme Court’s decision came from the reality that this institution is largely dominated by appointees of the highly political former Pres. Arroyo, then let God be the Judge in a situation where God’s stewards do not do their jobs judiciously.
Feeling of Innocence Versus Detection of Misdemeanor
| |
Former Pres. Arroyo thanked God for the moral support of her supporters, and the Supreme Court for finally stopping five years of persecution. She hopes that with the high court making a final decision, everyone will respect and recognize the truth that has been established.
It is her fervent hope that nobody else will endure the persecution that had been charged on her through self-serving interpretation and application of the law. And that the brushing aside of truth for which she was made to go through be handled suitably at the soonest possible time.
Similarly, Arroyo's supporters are elated by the Tuesday’s Supreme Court's ruling on dismissing the plunder case against the former President for insufficient proof.
|
In October, Arroyo was arrested on charges that she misused the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes (PCSO) fund from 2008 to 2010.
“In total, P365 million was released by the PCSO over the course of three years, with P244.5 million, as stated in the report of Mr. Aguas, transferred to the Office of the President. The overwhelming bulk of the funds, at 66.9 percent, was used for activities not sanctioned by the charter of the PCSO,” former President Aquino said.
Aquino said the PCSO charter clearly stated that the use of the agency funds other than for purposes authorized under the charter is punishable by imprisonment.[6]
|
Commentary:
Former Pres. Aquino said that in a normal corporate setting, a financial officer who does not know how to prepare a budget is either dismissed from employment or, at least, demoted because any company that is forced to source additional funds as a result of erroneous financial plan will either:
A). Lose the projected earning, since a portion of it will be assigned to cover the required amount.
Or:
B). All of a sudden will have a loan at an interest and thus use its profits to pay the loan. In a separate illustration: When a company has a manager who compels the corporation to incur losses or to borrow with interest, only to have what is loaned left idle, such heavy-handed managerial practice is sternly punished.
Having said those opposing statements of the two presidents – personal interpretation and application of the law as in the case of rationalization of the tormented and breaking of the law for the tormentor’s justification – the taxpayers who pay the presidents’ monthly salaries for a six-year term of office do not know who’s incompetent and liar versus the one who’s adept and truthful. May God’s justice reigns, not falsehoods.
 |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment