It is horrendous.
This is my immediate reaction after reading the Resolution issued by the City
Prosecution Office from a highly urbanized city in Mindanao. A copy of that
resolution was emailed to me by the victim herself, who is also a lawyer. She
expressed the kind of pain she now feels when the Prosecutor dismissed several
charges of violation of RA 9262, Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children
Act, which she filed against a man with whom she had intimate relations few
years ago.
Many advocates who
have been working with us for decades now, cannot believe that what happened
decades ago still do happen or recur these days with the Prosecution
Office considering that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been in the
forefront in promoting Gender Sensitivity and Responsiveness in the justice
system.
Among the 8 pillars
of the Criminal Justice System that the Transformative Justice Institute
continuously monitor, the Judiciary or the court is by far perceived to
be the most resistant to transformation. The perception of the prevalance
of the intertwining culture of patriarchy, corruption and impunity in the
pillars of justice particularly in the judiciary can be clearly perceived
by many Filipinos nowadays.
Many citizens are
already openly talking about the much needed judicial reform. Many more lawyers
and laypersons have become bold in their complaints. We can see this in the
very encouraging growth of the LEAP JUSTICE, or Lawyers/Laypersons for Ethical
Administration of the Philippine Justice.
Despite the change in leadership of the Judiciary due to the impeachment of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona and the appointment of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the much needed judicial reform is unable to take place obviously because of the great divide within the Supreme Court. Many Filipinos continue to suffer because of the present state of the Judiciary.
The resistance for
change to take place in the courts is understandable because the judiciary as a
third branch of the Philippine government can always invoke independence from
the other two branches of government, the Executive and Legislative
branches who are headed by politicians. While we know that
the judiciary is not headed by politicians many justices and judges kowtow to
political leaders to whom they feel beholden. Such partiality can be gleaned
from decisions they make.
President Benigno
Simeon C. Aquino 111, PNOY, while very open about his desire to transform
the justice system, can only make certain pronouncements especially when it
concerns the Judiciary because of judicial independence. It is in this regard
that groups from the civil society, church based organizations, like the
Churches of Christ, or the academe, like the Catholic Educational Association
of the Philippines (CEAP), can do a lot especially in the area of advocacy for
judicial reform. CEAP has a strong program in this regard in connection
with its program on Justice and Peace.
When the miscarriage
of justice is caused not by the judiciary but by any of the agencies that
belong to the Executive branch of the government, after three years of
making Justice Reform as one of its main programs of government, it is
shocking.
But here, in April
2013, I am seeing a resolution from a city prosecution office that still does a
lot of victim blaming. Obviously, there are people on the ground even within
the executive branch of the government who resist change. I know for a
fact that the Department of Justice is already using its Gender and Development
(GAD) budget in training its prosecutors in the gender sensitive manner of
handling cases on violence against women and their children (VAWC).
The complainant who
is a lawyer, cannot believe that the Investigating Prosecutor, another woman,
will end up with that resolution where the prosecutor concluded
that the respondent is more credible than the complainant. She believed the
respondent who said that the taking of the nude photos of the complainant while
she was sleeping, was with her consent. This is truly horrible.
The resolution is
not just and not fair. It is erroneous.
The city prosecution
office usurped the duty and function of the court in weighing evidence. It is
the court's duty to determine who is more credible between the complainant and
the respondent. The prosecution should only determine probable cause. It should
have filed an Information in court for Violation of RA 9262, where there is an
extensive trial and hearing. In court there can be cross examinations where the
credibility of the contending parties can be closely determined by the judge.
The Motion for
Reconsideration of the complainant and her lawyer clearly points out the errors
that will give the city prosecution office a chance to correct itself. I hope
they do; so as not to further embarrass this government in the area of justice
reform which is almost not taking place at all.
This case is now
being monitored by several women's group in the locality. The respondent is a
high ranking regional official who belongs to a powerful political family. Many
women are concerned that this case might end up to be like the Karen Vertido
case; where the complainant was vindicated only thru the UNCEDAW. The accused
in the case of Karen is also rich and well connected. The judge in the Karen
Vertido case is also a woman. The Philippine government faced great
embarrassment in the manner that case was decided as pointed out in the
Communication from the UNCEDAW.
It is a good
challenge for the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW) to take note of the
present case early on so it can be instrumental in putting a stop to the
continuing state violence against women by making sure that the duty bearers
are able to ethically administer justice.
This is what the Lord Almighty says, "Administer true justice; show
mercy and compassion to one another." Zechariach 7:9
Dory Cruz Avisado
4-28-13
