Punchline
Another “Hoodlum in Robe”?
By Ermin Garcia Jr.
REMEMBER the first time when then President Erap Estrada traced the roots of corruption, injustice and poverty, and pointed to the “hoodlums in robes” as the culprits?
Veteran lawyers across the country chuckled at that colorful imagery conceding that they have met at least one in their long years of legal practice. While Erap offered no precise definition, lawyers said Erap’s “hoodlums” obviously referred to judges who are either ignorant of the law, the habitually lazy or judges on the take. However, to non-lawyers including myself, who have no daily contacts with judges and lawyers until we sue or get sued, the “hoodlum in robe” is a fictitious character until the judge manifests himself/herself through his/her decision and order.
But the truth is Erap’s notorious “hoodlums in robe” continue to walk with the most honorable and respectable judges, inflicting injustice twice over on many litigants. Unfortunately, they remain invisible because victims and their lawyers, awed by the perceived awesome powers of judges, opt not to complain. That has to change.
* * * * *
The first “hoodlum in robe” I encountered was in Dagupan City, and that was more than a decade ago. That despicable judge had since met his Creator, the Ultimate and Fair Judge. I could only pray for his soul knowing how extraneously difficult it must have been for him pleading for mercy before the Highest Court of Salvation and Damnation, explaining himself against what the Almighty Judge already knew about him and the series of injustice and hardships he caused many lives in exchange for political favors and cash.
After that hoodlum’s demise, I didn’t find it difficult to restore my faith in the honorable men and women in black robes all these years. Alas, it seems his tribe would not die. I believe I encountered another that came close to Erap’s reference.
My second suspect “hoodlum in robe” walks the corridors of the Hall of Justice in Dagupan City today.
* * * * *
Without going into the merits of a particular case, this judge recently issued a most unusual order on February 27, 2012 on a petition of a teacher-cum-farmer to stop and evict a squatter who has forcibly taken control over a large part of her family’s small farm estate. The order reads:
“In view of the Certification dated January 5, 2012 by Atty. Raul C. Laluan, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer II, Department of Agrarian Reform Office, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, that the case involves an agrarian dispute, thus, this is not proper for trial; (Underscoring mine).
Wherefore, this case is hereby lifted from the archives and the complaint is dismissed.”
Nothing followed.
* * * * *
I shared a copy of the court order with two highly respected judges in Manila for their reaction. They sheepishly concurred that it smacks of either undisguised incompetence and ignorance on the part of the judge on how due process works, or of the laziness of the judge or of the earnest desire of the judge to dismiss the case for reasons only known to the suspect hoodlum- or all of the above.
Indeed, it is the norm for fair and learned judges to take pains in justifying their decisions for each case, citing arguments propounded in court by all parties including the relevant jurisprudence, but this judge couldn’t care less. This judge offered none and was simply dismissive.
Perhaps this judge, who loomed as a surprise “hoodlum” suspect, did not find it necessary to further explain the decision or cite a paragraph or two to back the certification, because there was none. (The provincial agrarian officer’s (PAO) Atty. Lalauan certification did not cite any reason, too, or arguments based on submitted position papers through two hearings. The certification only stated “…pursuant to Section 19 of R.A. NO. 9700 amending R.A. 6657, the case involves an agrarian dispute, thus it is not proper for trial.)” (Underscoring mine to illustrate the “cut-and-paste” nature of the suspect hoodlum-judge’s order).
What judge would decide a case without soliciting comments from both complainant and respondent to a certification (submitted by a third party only to the judge) knowing the certification would be used as a basis for a decision? And, what judge would decide a case on the basis of a letter certification that did not even state findings or arguments to support its determination “that the case involves an agrarian dispute, thus it is not proper for trial”? (The two judges said a knowledgeable judge would have asked the agency to support its certification with findings, not robotically accept a mere claim as gospel truth, especially that the finding is adverse to the complainant).
In the two judges’ book, only Erap’s “hoodlum in robe” would.
* * * * *
Again, noting the extreme brevity of both the judge’s order and the PAO’s certification, notwithstanding lengthy pleadings and numerous affidavits of witnesses submitted to both, one cannot but suspect that the judge followed a “script” to deny the complainant’s prayer from the very beginning.
This judge initially ignored the complainant’s petition for a temporary restraining order and instead ordered the case’s archiving on the mere claim of the respondent-squatter that there was a pending agrarian case when there was none. Proof of this was the fact that the DAR had to conduct two hearings on the claimed dispute only after the judge conveniently endorsed the case for certification. This explains why it took DAR Urdaneta 136 days, not 15 days as prescribed by law, to issue the certification.
To add insult to injury, the judge took another 31 days just to issue a “cut-and-paste” order dated February 27, 2012. The complainant accidentally came to know about it last week when she went to the judge’s office purposely to simply inquire if DAR had already issued a certification. (The complainant decided to inquire because she never received any court notice about it since the DAR hearings were concluded 3 months ago).
The two eagle judges said they’d be interested to know how this suspect-judge can explain to the Supreme Court the glaring lapses and omissions in both the process adopted for the case and the court order, once the issue reaches the latter. I will certainly keep them posted.
* * * * *
Still, there’s more about this case than meets the eye. Future events will confirm that a conspiracy involving a town mayor and his protégé, a barangay kapitan and others are manipulating the legal process to benefit the kapitan’s relative, the respondent-squatter who has since forcibly taken over an even larger farm area from the time the case was filed in December 8, 2010!
Why do I know all these? The aggrieved complainant and victim of injustice is my elder sister. I am fully aware of the circumstances and the involvement of principal characters in the case, including that of my “suspect-hoodlum in robe.”
The judge has time to redeem the court’s lost honor and integrity by finally deciding justly and intelligently on all cases being tried today and in the future before it. I pray the judge will… not only for the judge’s own sake but to help Pinoys keep their faith in the country’s justice system!
* * * * *
PAGING LGU HEALTH OFFICES – One main source of many illnesses can be traced to unsanitary public facilities, particularly, comfort rooms of restaurants, buildings and yes, government agencies. (Tayug Judge Ulysses Butuyan is appalled by the state of the comfort room at the Dagupan City Post Office!). Many personnel of health offices of towns and cities are idle and bored not realizing that they can do their towns a great favor and service even if all they do is to inspect the state of public comfort rooms daily and terrorize negligent building and establishment owners in their communities, in the name of public health.
Share your Comments or Reactions
Powered by Facebook Comments
