I’ve been thinking about the Joseph Estrada plunder case. Now that the case is submitted for resolution and a 3-month wait (max), it has been a six-year trial. What have we accomplished? What have we gained?

This case is special because of the implications and complications that it may cause. As DJB calls it, it is a political dilemma – to be fair or to be right. Read his post for background.

I think the prosecution’s appeal to history is wrong. History can go both ways; it can go against their way. Besides, there is something wrong with this assertion:

It is a rare occasion, indeed, for the country to have a second chance at attempting a fundamental change in its administration of justice — after the failure to obtain swift and timely justice against the Marcoses and their cronies, many cases against whom are still pending with courts after more than 20 years…
xxx
(Estrada’s acquittal will) sound the final death knell for good governance in our country and irreversibly doom our generation and the succeeding generations to decades of abject poverty caused by the pernicious effects of continuing pervasive corruption.

“Non sequitur” is a Latin phrase that means “it does not follow. In formal logic, this fallacy is committed when the conclusion arrived at is not supported by the given premises.

The prosecutors made two assertions: (1) if Estrada is acquitted, there can no longer be a fundamental change in the administration of justice; and (2) an acquittal will lead to more problems of poverty. Either the prosecutors are prescient, or they are appealing to emotions, not reason. Again, an acquittal does not necessarily mean that the justice system will fail, that poverty will worsen. Also, a conviction does not necessarily mean that good governance is enhanced.

This nation is in a bind, in a dilemma. Whatever course of action we take, we will be suffering from it. Let’s say for example Erap is convicted and his motion for reconsideration is denied. His next course of action is to appeal to the Supreme Court, who in 2001 decided that Joseph Estrada has resigned the presidency. Three of the justices who concurred in that decision are still in the Court, including the current Chief Justice, Reynato Puno (who wrote the decision). The Court should decide on the basis of evidence. An acquittal will put the Supreme Court in a moral quagmire, and throws it back to where it all started, EDSA 2.

An affirmation of the conviction will probably re-open the wounds caused by EDSA 2 (wounds that have not healed), which will probably divide this country (hopefully not).

The major problem is this: can we trust the Supreme Court to reach a fair and right decision? After all, the very same Court has put us in this dilemma in the first place!

Is it going to be fair to Estrada if the Sandiganbayan convicts him, even if reasonable doubt exists, just to pay lip service to history, to good governance? As Patsada Karajaw puts it:

What they are saying is that Erap should be convicted to showcase that our justice system works. In effect, some people want Erap to be the sacrificial lamb. This is not how our justice system should work. The case must be decided on the merits; based on the evidence presented and not because there is a need for us to convict one man to show that our system works. In its zeal to jail corrupt people, our courts must see to it that someones right is not also denied.

And think about the consequences of an acquittal. The political pressure for a conviction is high. And why is that? Ellen Tordesillas answers:

While an acquittal would salve the pain and anger over the unjust ouster of Estrada from the presidency, what would that make of Gloria Arroyo’s six-year presidency? If Estrada did not commit plunder, what then was the rationale for his ouster in 2001?

An acquittal verdict would nullify the basis of the first three years of Arroyo’s presidency, which put her in a position to bastardize the 2004 elections to remain in power.

It seems all our political troubles began on that day in January 2001. And the Sandiganbayan’s decision will not probably end it. Heaven knows how this will end.

And to end this post, let me post John Marzan‘s answer to DJB’s question:

Kung sasagutin yan ng mga edsa dos supporters at veterans na ngayo’y tacit supporters na ng pagnakaw ng election ni Arroyo noong 2004–sasabog ang ulo nila.