Thursday, January 15, 2009 Wenceslao: Just my view By Bong O. Wenceslao Candid Thoughts
I READ yesterday’s news story on the statements of support to embattled Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno issued by Cebu judges, lawyers and law students and could not help but notice the obvious. I could picture people too engrossed with the makeup to take note of the face upon which it is applied on. Peripherals over substance.
That’s where people like Joaquin Bernas sometimes stand out without trying to. While many, for example, raved and ranted about how the Arroyo government “sold” our patrimony to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in that aborted Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral domain issue, Bernas, et al just studied the substance of the pact.
That was months ago, but I would bet that until now most of those who were vociferous in their views about the pact haven’t even read a line in the document. They include lawyers, especially the politician kind, who always grab at the chance to pontificate about focusing on the merits of a case and do not apply that to their politics.
I mean, it would have been good if the judges, lawyers and law students who issued the pro-Puno statement first enlightened us laymen about the substance of the case involving the Chief Justice before shifting to the peripherals. Instead we were deluged with a slew of supposed motives behind moves to oust Puno without proofs presented.
In fairness to the judges, lawyers and law students, the practice actually extends to the other sectors. In the controversial “Alabang boys” case, for example, even as the accusations and counter-accusations are still to be resolved, fans of the concerned prosecutors on one side and of the police (and a Marine official) acted up nationwide.
I doubt if these “supporters” knew the real story---they most probably based their judgment on media reports or on the coverage of the congressional hearing that was conducted on the “Alabang boys.” That means that their stand of supporting one side over the other was based either on a hunch or on built-in biases, which are unreliable.
Before you gang up on me, I am not saying I do not respect your views. I will even go to the extent of using a cliché to emphasize that I will defend to the death your right to state them. But it would have been good if, before raising hell about something, a certain degree of enlightenment must first be acquired. That means tackling first the substance of an issue before going to the peripherals---and yes, proof is required.
(khanwens@yahoo.com/ my blog: cebuano.wordpress.com)
