Right to Rule Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Right to Rule - Essay Example However, though the Supreme Court allowed itself to be bullied into submission, the country now has the chance to right the wrong committed four years ago and reinstate Estrada as president. Many things stand in favor of this. Therefore, though Chief Justice Davide and GMA stole the presidency from Erap and the Filipino people, now there is a chance that this injustice might be reversed. The truth regarding the conduct of former president Estrada has never really been sought by the Philippine Supreme Court. Over the past four years and with little success, Estrada's lawyer has repeatedly sought an audience with the justices of that court, arguing that his client had not received a fair trial. According to the constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, attorneys are allowed to call into question judgments made by the Supreme Court, provided the attorney act respectfully, in accordance with the law, and also provided that the faith of the people in the judicial system is not harmed. The law has made allowance for the fallibility of the Supreme Court and agrees to hear any respectful and warranted complaint brought against it. The truth of this was, however, not evident in the Court's handling of the appeals made by attorney Alan F. Paguia in defense of President Estrada. Rather, he has been accused of "seeking to breathe life into the carcass of a long-dead issu e" (CITATION). These and other similar accusations were made after Paguia, upon going before the Sandiganbayan, requested the following: First, that President Estrada be given the opportunity to vindicate himself and prove that he was not allowed to have a fair trial; and second, that Panganiban and several of the other key players in the prosecution's case be issued a subpoena to provide documents that prove their support of the edict that proclaimed Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as the new president of the Republic of the Philippines. However, this motion was denied and Paguia declared by the court to be belligerent and seeking to incite public mistrust of the judicial system. His behavior was described as "an obstinate display of defiance" (CITATION). Furthermore, it was said that "in liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct, and p ervert the dispensation of justice" (CITATION). Consequently, his license to practice law was indefinitely suspended by the Sandiganbayan. To allow himself to be barred from his profession, it would appear that Paguia, in making those appeals in the behalf of President Estrada, was acting upon a principle. In fact, he appears to have been morally obliged to assert these claims because of the manner in which the original case was handled. The components of the four-pronged charges in the case against President Erap are all monetary in nature. They consist of funds received from illegal gambling (jueteng), funds from the tobacco excise tax, commissions received from Bell Corporation, and owning an account in the name of Jose Velarde. These allegations