Sen. Santiago’s Verbal Abuse and Bad Example Merit a Penalty
The impeachment trial has gone from sizzling hot to very sour as many factors contributed to the fate of the lazy afternoon soap opera’s fall – prosecution’s incompetence, defense’s time-wasting with technicalities and Supreme Court’s gag orders.
Although from time to time, there are funny incidents and things to take note of, but what was initially promised as an ‘explosive’ impeachment trial that will pin down Chief Justice Renato Corona on the ropes with his defense throwing in the towel, has become a flop and a place where ridicule has become part of the routine of some intellectual arrogants.
Santiago lecturing the prosecution.
That was the case yesterday as Sen. Miriam Santiago once again lambasted, criticized, lectured and humiliated the prosecution panel because of their withdrawal of other impeachment charges. The prosecution said that they are confident that the other charges they presented in court, together with the pieces of evidence will convict the chief magistrate. To this, the irate, impatient and vocal Santiago castigated the prosecution from head to toe; that even their souls would have cried for rescue.
But one of the private prosecutors, Atty. Aguirre, tried to save himself from the misery of hearing the verbal abuse that Santiago energetically displayed and the presiding officer tolerated, by covering his ears.
Just too painful to the ears.
Here are some of Santiago’s words from yesterday’s hearing:
“I am very concerned that the prosecution has been acting in bad faith all along because you tell so many things to media when you can file an official manifestation in this court. You insist you are already winning the court battle because you have proof beyond reasonable doubt. Good grief, that is contempt of court.
I felt like creeping back into bed and adopting a fetal position, which is the normal reaction of any sane person when he’s faced with a world that is crumbling around him. I no longer know what universe I’m in … because I’ve never seen this done to a judge before.”
She was flaming by calling the prosecution offensive name/words such as the word “gago.”
In an opinion by Atty. Mel Sta. Maria published by Interaksyon , he shared that the Supreme Court once penalized a judged for his arrogance in treating the lawyers and litigants. The case of Juan dela Cruz vs. Carretas (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2043). Part of the ruling of the SC says:
SEC. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities
A judge should possess the virtue of gravitas. He should be learned in the law, dignified in demeanor, refined in speech and virtuous in character. Besides having the requisite learning in the law, he must exhibit that hallmark judicial temperament of utmost sobriety and self-restraint. In this connection, he should be considerate, courteous and civil to all persons who come to his court. A judge who is inconsiderate, discourteous or uncivil to lawyers, litigants or witnesses who appear in his sala commits an impropriety and fails in his duty to reaffirm the people’s faith in the judiciary. He also violates Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary which provides:
SEC. 6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others subject to their influence, direction or control. (emphasis supplied)
It is reprehensible for a judge to humiliate a lawyer, litigant or witness. The act betrays lack of patience, prudence and restraint. Thus, a judge must at all times be temperate in his language. He must choose his words, written or spoken, with utmost care and sufficient control. The wise and just man is esteemed for his discernment. Pleasing speech increases his persuasiveness.
Equanimity and judiciousness should be the constant marks of a dispenser of justice. A judge should always keep his passion guarded. He can never allow it to run loose and overcome his reason. He descends to the level of a sharp-tongued, ill-mannered petty tyrant when he utters harsh words, snide remarks or sarcastic comments. As a result, he degrades the judicial office and erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
How about that as a guide to the upcoming judge of the International Court?
While Sen. Miriam Santiago weeks ago castigated the prosecution for being lawyers who are lawbreakers in line with the alleged fake bank documents of CJ Corona they allegedly obtained illegally, she has instantly become one of them too, so easily – a lawyer who is a lawbreaker herself.
While the prosecution has shown weakness in their handling of the case, Santiago has no right whatsoever to humiliate them and call them ‘gago’; very unbecoming, undignified of her position as a legislator, a public servant and a senator-judge. Well, if they are incompetent, she could just show it through her vote by acquitting Renato Corona.
Just imagine your teacher calling you ‘gago’ and humiliate you in front of your classmates just because you haven’t given a correct answer during a recitation or was not able to pass your assignment. Even if your grade is at the mercy of your teacher, he/she does not have the right to humiliate anyone at anytime.
It was also sad that Enrile’s neurons were also missing if not too old to recognize what is fair and what is non-sense when he said and ruled after Atty. Aguirre was held in contempt:
“We have been taught to practice a professional behavior of utmost control and respect to the dignity of the court room before whom we appear. I must say that I cannot tolerate any disrespect of this court and any member of this court.”
“Utmost control and respect”…that should have been the words for the senator who needs some anger management sessions.
What should have been a just ruling for Enrile was to hold both Atty. Aguirre and Sen. Santiago in contempt.
Senator-judges are not exempted from showing decency, good behavior and respect – they are not demigods.
I was very proud of Santiago when she got a seat as a judge in the international court, but her arrogant behavior as a senator-judge yesterday makes me withdraw that sense of pride to a fellow Ilonggo.
Miriam Santiago should be reprimanded or sanctioned by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the top honcho at the Supreme Court is a man himself who cannot even show decency as a public servant; much more command decency from his fellow lawyers.
With new lawyers also announced by SC yesterday, I am prompted to ask: was that the kind of shameful attitude perfected by Santiago that they need to learn as lawyers?
With the impeachment trial shown live on local television networks, was that the kind of shameful behavior that our citizens and the youth need to learn?
I know the answer of course, but Santiago can always say that shes got more neurons that what we all have.
Photo credit: interaksyon.com
2 comments
“…….. Unfortunately, the top honcho at the Supreme Court is a man himself who cannot even show decency as a public servant; much more command decency from his fellow lawyers.”
-Too early to say that, the defense is yet to present their case on impeachment court. You can’t judge a man without hearing his side, right?
We can always make a judgment on a person even if we haven’t heard his side (that is a choice we can always make in a democratic society, but an act that a judge cannot make in a court proceeding).
With what is happening, and what has happened I can make a judgment of CJ Corona already with respect to evidence presented, in view of the matter of decency expected from a public official more so from the highest magistrate…like, did he disclose or not his SALN…and did he disclose with honesty what were on his SALNs…the discrepancies in his properties and what he earns, and the issue of accepting a midnight appointment.
Those matters could be easily be defended by CJ’s lawyers when their turn comes in this legal battle…they can easily present alibis and invoke technicalities as regards the admission of evidence and the relevance of existing evidence of the prosecution, et al.
But the bar of public opinion is not as rigid as a court proceeding that a judge needs to suspend all judgment till he hears all sides. The measure of a legal proceeding in judging a man is different from measuring a man’s sense of decency.
Which I guess what my statement was all about…judging Corona on his level of decency as an official rather than if he violated a law.
Thanks by the way for the comment.
Leave a Comment