|
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Nalzaro: Panganiban’s statement
By Bobby Nalzaro
We have our own biases stemming from our sentiments and on how we perceive things. Judges and justices, however, should not show these biases in rendering decisions. They should implement penalties based on what is prescribed under the law.
How many times, for example, have the Supreme Court castigated lower court judges for rendering unjust decisions?
I recall that the High Tribunal reprimanded an anti-death penalty Manila Regional Trial Court judge for refusing to impose capital punishment even if a convict committed a heinous crime, which was punishable with death. The Supreme Court said judges should not be carried away by their emotions and personal stand and should impose the death penalty if warranted.
But look who's talking now. No less than the chief justice of the Supreme Court has divulged his bias.
The statement of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban that the Supreme Court may have erred in affirming the death penalty imposed by a lower court on Leo Echagaray is a big slap on the faces of the justices who participated in the deliberation of the case, especially those who affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Panganiban, in a recent speech, said that Echagaray, the first convict to be executed through lethal injection following the passage of Republic Act 7659 or the death penalty law, might have been a victim of an “erroneous execution.”
He said it was not proven during the trial by the lower court that Echegaray was the father, stepfather or grandfather of the victim, which would have made his crime heinous and therefore punishable with death. Thus, Echegaray should not have been executed but should have only been meted life imprisonment.
It was in 1996 when the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court to impose the death penalty on Echegaray. Panganiban, who was then an associate justice, along with Associate Justices Reynato Puno and Jose Vitug, voted against it in keeping with his position that death penalty was unconstitutional.
If indeed there was judicial error in the Echagaray case, then why did Panganiban not argue his views well with his colleagues? Is he talking about it now because the death penalty law is about to be scrapped?
Had Panganiban insisted on his stand, this “judicial error” would have been corrected and Echegaray would not have been executed. His recent statements on the matter could only create animosities between justices, especially those who affirmed Echegaray's conviction and who are still in the Supreme Court.
Should we believe that the 13 justices were wrong and that only Panganiban was right? The High Court is a collegial body and the decision of the majority rules.
In sum, Panganiban’s statement will only paint a negative image on the Supreme Court and would cast doubt on its integrity. Also, it will surely affect his future decisions.
(bgnalzaro@gmanetwork.com/0918-2198333)
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (June 14, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
