You know, one of my favorite expressions is “same banana.” Imagine my horror when Judge Oscar Pimentel used that term in his decision to deny all of Senator Antonio Trillanes IV’s motions. The good judge must be wracking his brains for one plausible, legal reason to give in to the Fortress deny the motions. The Department of Justice gave him one, and trashing Trillanes’ reasoning that his case is different from that of convicted rapist Romeo Jalosjos, calling both cases not as “apples and arranges.” They are the *shudders* same banana.

You know, lawyers are supposed to be good at logic. Stretch logic that far, and you end up being a joke.

You know, when you are subjected to ribbing by Manuel Buencamino, it means that you made, using Chicken Mafia‘s favorite term, poop.

Anyway, let’s give the floor to Mr. Buencamino:

First, you flipped the essence of our representative form of government. From “majority of voters rule,” you turned it into “the rule of the nonvoting majority.”

You echoed the Enchanted Kingdom line:
“As the prosecuting arm of the government, its shield and sword of law and order, [the Department of Justice] represents not only the 11,138,067 voters who voted for him, but the people of the Philippines, with all its 85 million citizens and counting.”

Judge, the purpose of elections is to choose representatives. One man with one vote decides who will assume office as our elected representative or representatives, not one woman with more than a million Garci votes.

Now, the right to vote belongs to all Filipinos who meet certain qualifications set forth in our constitution. That means many Filipinos cannot vote. But that doesn’t mean our Constitution is not fair. Parents, for example, are presumed to vote for their children’s welfare until such time as they are old enough to vote.

My point is this: Those who have a right to vote but choose not to exercise that right have no say in our representative form of government. It’s not for you or the Justice Department to overrule the wisdom of voters.

You can’t pull nonvoters out of your rear end, presume to know what they want, and then tell me you’re protecting them from my stupidity. They didn’t vote. I did. So live with it.

Second, Alice in Wonderland is a fantasy tale written by Lewis Carroll. But, even if it were real in some places, we have not, until you enshrined it in your ruling, adopted that fantasyland’s concept of justice—”sentence first, verdict later.”

“Allowing accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and committee hearings five days or more in a week will virtually make him a free man with all the privileges appurtenant to his position. Such an aberrant situation not only elevates the accused-appellant’s status to that of a special class, it would also be a mockery of the purposes of the correction system.”

Rep. Romeo Jalosjos was convicted. He is in the correction system. Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV is still undergoing trial and presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He is not yet in the correction system.

Please try to keep those facts in their proper order—verdict first, sentence later—so you don’t spout aberrations that mock the very foundation of our justice system. Okay?

You know, the decision stretches things too far, it snapped back at the judge. He tried to overturn two of the most essential pillars of democracy. Let’s stretch this further, OK? So, assuming that the 85 million who did not vote for Trillanes or chose not to outweigh the 11 million who did, let’s disregard Trillanes’ mandate. Heck, let’s disregard Zubiri’s “mandate” too. Or for that matter, all of the Senators, and Gloria Arroyo herself!

Next, an accused is now considered guilty until proven innocent. Now that’s a complete reversal of what’s written in the Constitution. Wow. What a genius. In one bold stroke, the decision has managed to repeal Article III, Section 14, paragraph 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Ain’t that grand!

And finally, with one blogger twitting those who believed Pimentel was wrong, Manuel L. Quezon III consulted Atty. Ed Lacierda, and oh boy:

Sounds logical but it does not work that way. Sometimes during trial and even before final judgment, the constitutional presumption of innocence can be overturned such as unexplained flight. When an accused takes flight, the constitutional presumption to innocence is overturned by the presumption of guilt. As we say in procedural law, flight denotes a presumption of guilt. Thus, it is possible that the constitutional presumption of innocence can be lost subject to the existence of some circumstances.

But he is being ingenious, there is a great distinction between Jalosjos and Trillanes and it is the fact that Jalosjos’ presumption of innocence has been overturned by conviction even if it was still pending appeal. The fact that Jalosjos has been convicted with proof beyond reasonable doubt overturns the constitutional presumption of innocence. Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt always overcomes the constitutional presumption of innocence.

The constitutional presumption of innocence really means that accusation is not synonymous with guilt. But if one is convicted, then it showed that the presumption has been overturned and it is now the turn of the accused to prove that the judgment of conviction is wrong. Moreover, to be very technical about it, an appeal is a statutory right, not a constitutional right.

If you read the Jalosjos decision, the background scenario is that he has already been convicted and is sitting in prison. The equal protection of the laws says that all persons similarly situated should be similarly treated. Jalosjos and Trillanes are not in the same situation. Trillanes has not been convicted so far. His detention is due to the fact that the crime he committed is non-bailable, not because he has been convicted. Thus, he continues to enjoy the presumption of innocence. That is the big difference. By all accounts, your analysis is clear and correct.

And if the guy wants to be consistent, then by all accounts, his presumption of innocence must allow Trillanes to sit as a senator and attend to the senate sessions.

Read the decision, what makes Jalosjos so different from Trillanes is that apart from the conviction, he ran away from his duties in Congress and hid from his fellow congressmen when a warrant of arrest was issued him. Afterwards, he invoked Congress when it was a convenient ploy to secure temporary liberty. That never happened with Sonny Trillanes.

Atty. Lacierda adds more here.

Yeah, discerning, huh? I am no lawyer, but at least I know how to differentiate between poop and logic.

PS: If the judge is really hell-bent on preventing Trillanes from serving his mandate, he should have instead invoked Article III, Section 13. Safer, simple, more logical, not poop.