The Politics of Obfuscation

Once upon a time there was a poor young man scavenging along the beach for shellfish to eat and whatever cast away things that he could use when he came upon a rusted clump. It didn't look promising but he thought that if it was just all rust, he could toss it away later. If there was still some usable metal within the rust, he could sell it at the recycling center for a few centavos.

When he reached the hovel he called home, he worked to get the rusty crust off whatever was inside the clump he found. Lo and behold, there was what appeared to be an oil lamp....

To make a long story short, out came a genie who granted him three wishes. He asked for wealth, good looks, and to really impress the women, he asked that he should be able to drag his penis along the ground when he walked. The genie then transformed his legs to mere stumps.

There are many variations to this anecdote. There's one where an American, seeing the success of foreign cars on American soil asked for a foreign car dealership. In the blink of an eye, he found himself the owner of a Cadillac dealership in the middle of Tokyo.

And then there's the story of the man who bought shoes at a shoe store because it was a “half off sale.” He only got one shoe, instead of a pair.

The point here is that ambiguity leads to confusion and sometimes, tragedy. Furthermore, if we are not vigilant in the manner by which other people use ambiguous language to mislead us.

We have always played fast and loose with our ambiguous and misleading language. News coverage of the recent dismissal of former Court of Appeals justice Vicente Roxas mentioned that he was a bar exams topnotcher. Being a bar topnotcher means topping the bar, that it, getting a grade higher than everyone else.

The term “barrister” refers lawyers in England and members of the Commonwealth State who have qualified to, and are allowed to appear before magistrates. Here we use that term to refer to law school graduates who are preparing or taking the bar exams. The proper term for those is “under bar” or bar examinees if they are currently taking the exams.

The problem with not being very exacting in our use of language is that we allow those who are more creative in their use of words to mislead and hoodwink us.

During the height of the rice crisis earlier this year, rumors were swirling around that Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap's father-in-law was unduly and unlawfully taking advantage of the situation. Secretary Yap issued a statement stating that his father-in-law was not in any way involved in the wholesale trading of grain. Of course, that did not really answer the issue of whether or not his father-in-law was taking undue and illegal advantage of the rice crisis. His father-in-law could have been involved in the grains retail trade, or numerous other activities related to the grain trade. Somehow, people just left the issue at that.

Just yesterday, the Armed Forces released a video of what appeared to be child soldiers undergoing training in arms and warfare under the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). The MILF immediately issued a statement categorically stating that none of their regular soldiers were children and that they do not recruit children to join their ranks. The MILF used a lot of words to say nothing at all.

The accusation based on the video is that the MILF is training children in the use of arms and in warfare. When the MILF stated that there are no children in the ranks of their regular troops or among their combatants, it only means that the alleged child soldiers do not join the ranks of regular troops and combatants until they are of age. And when the MILF avers that they do not recruit children, it does not say anything about whether or not they refuse children who volunteer to join their ranks.

A Growing, Festering Cancer

The Supreme Court resolution regarding the investigation by the special panel on the briber scandal in the Court of Appeals case regarding the controversy involving MERALCO and the GSIS came out on yesterday, September 9, 2008. The Supreme Court removed Vicente Roxas from the Court of Appeals, suspended Jose Sabio for two months, severely reprimanded Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, reprimanded and admonished three other justices who were part of the controversy, recommended the institution of disbarment proceedings against PCGG chairman Camilo Sabio and for the Justice Department to study the criminal charges that may be filed against businessman Francis De Borja.

In a way, it may be said that a cancerous growth has been removed from the judiciary but continuing on this analogy, more needs to be done. As anyone who had cancer or knows someone who did, removing a cancerous growth is only the first step. First, one must make sure that all the cancerous growth have been removed. Then there is also a need to determine if there are other cancerous growths elsewhere. If so, those have to be treated as well.

On the issue of whether or not the all the cancerous cells have been removed, most people are of the belief that that is not the case. Only one of the justices of the five who have been found to have varying degrees of culpability have been removed from his position. We are talking here of the Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the land. While negligence or ignorance of the rules and procedures may me excusable in lower courts, we require a higher standard of behavior, if not ethics, of the higher courts. All this talk about members of the judiciary being like Caesar's wife is not idle talk. At least it should not be. Not only must judges be pure, they must also appear to be pure, just like Caesar's wife.

Jose Sabio entertained, or at least did not shun attempts to influence his decision, a clear violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Worse, he thought there was nothing wrong with his brother calling him and trying to convince him to rule one way as he did not allow himself to be influenced. I do not believe it is ignorance that led him to believe this. Even a first year law student would know that such behavior is unacceptable. Hell, any person with some sense of decency and fair play would find such actuations contrary to everyday, run-of-the-mill rules of fair play. It was possibly hubris, thinking that the standards set out in the Code of Judicial Conduct were open to one's interpretation.

The other justices who were found wanting also got off easy, to the detriment of the judiciary. It bears reiterating that the Court of Appeals is second only to the Supreme Court as the highest judicial authority in the land. It is already unconscionable that justices with malice in their hearts or mush in their heads have reached this high in the judiciary, it would be much worse that after finding out who these are, they are merely given slaps on the wrists. Any case that would later on come before these erring justices would be tainted with suspicion. And suspicion has a funny way of rubbing off on those around it. Second chances are good but with the integrity of our judicial system at stake, let these justices get their second chances somewhere else.

The Supreme Court should take this opportunity to do a major housecleaning in the Court of Appeals and elsewhere in the judicial branch. How likely is it that all the bad eggs in the Court of Appeals found their way to just one division? Not very likely. Rumors of impropriety reek around labor cases so the the Supreme Court may start with the Court of Appeals division handling labor case, down to the National Labor Relations Commission and the labor arbiters. The Supreme Court might as well extend the housecleaning down to the rank and file like clerks of court and sheriffs who seem to be much well off financially than the officers of the court that they serve.

Unfortunately, if history is any indication, the Supreme Court would just rule that the matter of corruption has been resolved as in two previous occasions when members of the Court of Appeals have been dismissed. We'd then be clamoring again for a clean-up of the judiciary once another scandal erupts in the judiciary.