The Filipino online universe is aflame with discussions of the Philippine Supreme Court's acquittal of Hubert Webb and others accused of perpetrating the Vizconde Massacre in 1991. From what I've seen of these discussions, the predominant mood is one of disgust and anger at the Supreme Court decision, with many online personae accusing the justices of having been swayed by power and money.
I don't intend to discuss the SC decision here. I am not a lawyer, and I haven't read any of the judicial ponencias on this case, by which I mean not only the Supreme Court decision of December 14, 2010 regarding the Vizconde case, but also the decisions of Judge Amelita Tolentino (January 2000) and of the Court of Appeals (December 2005). Many columnists have said their piece, and I expect more legal discussion and commentary to be published in the next few days. I would like to comment, instead, on three aspects of the popular reaction to the Supreme Court decision.
First, there are the accusations of corruption against the Supreme Court justices who voted for acquittal. I don't think more than a handful of the people making this accusation have actually read the Supreme Court ponencia, to see if it might be based on something solid. None of that seems to matter: what is important for these accusers is that Hubert Webb and other scions of rich families have been acquitted. Rich kids were acquitted, therefore they must have been acquitted because they are rich. Hubert Webb is the son of the "powerful" Freddie Webb, therefore Hubert Webb and his co-accused were acquitted because the "powerful" former Senator lobbied the Supreme Court for their acquittal. (Few seem to realize that if the ex-Senator Freddie Webb is so powerful as to be able to force the Supreme Court to issue an acquittal for Hubert Webb, then he should have been able to prevent his son from being convicted and imprisoned in 1995, when he was still a Senator.)
Add to this the unpopularity of the Supreme Court because of its perceived opposition to the still-popular Noynoy Aquino, and you have a situation where speculation about the dark motives of the justices will be welcomed, if not encouraged, by the media.
Second, there is the insistence that Mr. Webb and his co-accused must remain in jail because there should be "justice for the Vizcondes" -- as if the essence of rendering justice for the slain is to ensure that someone is imprisoned for the crime, regardless of whether there are any serious questions about the guilt of those imprisoned. ("Dapat may managot!", "Someone must answer for this!") Justice, so it seems to many Filipino netizens, consists in some sort of vicarious atonement or suffering, whereby someone -- whether guilty or innocent -- is made to rot in jail in order to "atone" for someone's death or suffering. This, of course, is not "just" by any historic interpretation of what "justice" is, no matter how ancient.
Imprisoning the innocent, or those whose guilt cannot be firmly established, does not do anyone favors. It isn't "justice", and if -- God forbid -- there were a case where the family of a crime victim becomes culpably involved in keeping an unjustly-sentenced man in prison, that family not only fails to secure justice for their slain loved one, they also add heavily to the divine punishment that they -- just like everyone else -- will receive for their sins whether in this life or in the next. (I'm Catholic, in case anyone reading this is surprised by what I've just written.)
Imprisoning the innocent, or those whose guilt cannot be firmly established, does not do anyone favors. It isn't "justice", and if -- God forbid -- there were a case where the family of a crime victim becomes culpably involved in keeping an unjustly-sentenced man in prison, that family not only fails to secure justice for their slain loved one, they also add heavily to the divine punishment that they -- just like everyone else -- will receive for their sins whether in this life or in the next. (I'm Catholic, in case anyone reading this is surprised by what I've just written.)
The last aspect I would like to comment upon here is the reverse discrimination so evident in many of the immediate reactions to the Webb acquittal. It is quite common to say in our country that justice is only for the rich and that it is always skewed against the poor. Quite aside from the fact that the Vizcondes weren't poor at all, it seems that for too many Filipinos online (and in the street), the only way that justice can be served in our country is by presuming that rich suspects are by definition guilty. (In much the same way, I have heard a lot of poverty-stricken crime suspects get defended as being innocent because "they're poor and are in prison only because they're poor.") One newspaper article I read quoted an enraged tricycle driver who complained that Webb et al should not have been released because "everyone should be equal before the law" -- as if equality before the law means that anyone so unfortunate enough as to have been born to rich and prominent parents should face discrimination from the courts. The rights of the poor are not guaranteed by telling the rich that they can't expect justice because they're rich.
No one denies that too many innocent poor people are thrown into jail because they can't afford a good lawyer, and that a lot of rich criminals escape justice on the backs of their wealth -- but this doesn't mean that a rich suspect is always guilty, and that the rich are always acquitted because they have wealth and power. That so many of our fellow citizens cannot understand these basic distinctions raises in my mind the question of whether our citizenry is educated enough to deal with or to pronounce upon matters of justice. One thing for sure: we as a country aren't ready for trial by jury.
No one denies that too many innocent poor people are thrown into jail because they can't afford a good lawyer, and that a lot of rich criminals escape justice on the backs of their wealth -- but this doesn't mean that a rich suspect is always guilty, and that the rich are always acquitted because they have wealth and power. That so many of our fellow citizens cannot understand these basic distinctions raises in my mind the question of whether our citizenry is educated enough to deal with or to pronounce upon matters of justice. One thing for sure: we as a country aren't ready for trial by jury.
I also wonder to what extent Filipino thinking has been influenced by the Communist narrative, whereby the "upper classes" are always evil, oppressive and exploitative. Combined with the uncritical glorification of the "poor" in the media and in popular preaching in the Catholic Church in the Philippines, we have a situation where -- to paraphrase Ramon Magsaysay -- those who have less in life have more innocence, and vice versa. (I say this as someone who has been personally poor for most of his life.)
Now, it is possible that Hubert Webb and his co-accused were guilty after all. However, even if they were guilty, the points that I have raised retain their validity. Mr. Webb and his co-accused, if indeed they are guilty, should have been kept on jail on the strength of the case against them, and not because they are "rich" and "powerful" and should therefore be made to suffer regardless of the evidence.
Now, it is possible that Hubert Webb and his co-accused were guilty after all. However, even if they were guilty, the points that I have raised retain their validity. Mr. Webb and his co-accused, if indeed they are guilty, should have been kept on jail on the strength of the case against them, and not because they are "rich" and "powerful" and should therefore be made to suffer regardless of the evidence.
Unfortunately, the logic of the mob is as inexorable as it is twisted, and will find guilt at whatever cost because it has a primal need to shed blood.
