DEAN STA. MARIA IN DRAWING THE WRONG CONNECTIONS MAKES HIMSELF LOOK LIKE A FOOL #LABANLENI

Dean Mel. Sta. Maria, in his InterAksyon Op Ed piece seemingly draws the connection between the firing of Vice President Leni Robredo to “future” decision of the Supreme Court acting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET).  This is so wrong on so many levels.  Let us dissect his reasoning.

In his article, Sta. Maria says:

In resigning from President Duterte’s cabinet, Vice President Leni Robredo said that she “had been warned of a plot to steal the Vice Presidency.” She stated that she had “chosen to ignore this and focus on the job at hand. But the events of recent days indicate that this plot is now being set into motion.”

This is a powerful statement. It warns of the gravest danger that may face the nation -- the thwarting of the people’s will. And since the position involved is the second highest public office in the land, it sends a message that the “plot” could not have been hatched by ordinary people, but by scheming, powerful and conspiring individuals with the means and influence to execute it.

The problem with his reasoning is that he depends on the say-so of the Vice President—a statement which was clearly made for political ends.  It seems that she made that statement in order to paint a favorable picture of herself in the eyes of the media.  She seemingly made this to portray herself as a victim and then to draw attention to a circumstance that seemingly has no relation to the fact of her firing.  Mr. Sta. Maria, Attorney Mel, when using statements such as these, it is important to take them with a grain of salt, since this is basically propaganda.

Embarrassingly, Leni Robredo, in an interview cannot even give a straight answer to the question, “how do you know of this plot?”




Factually, the statement itself isn’t logical, it is a non sequitur.  Getting fired from her HUDCC post has nothing to do with her ouster from the Vice Presidency.  The Vice President holds no real power and has no real function until such time as the President dies, or is incapacitated or is unable to discharge his functions.  There is no Constitutional requirement for the VP to be given a cabinet post.  The HUDCC post itself is a cabinet position, therefore, to be a member of the cabinet, one is expected to be a team player and only serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority.  It was therefore within the President's right to dismiss Leni the moment she stopped enjoying the President's trust and confidence.

Painting himself further into a corner, Mr. Sta. Maria speculates that something is about to go down in the Supreme Court following Leni's firing.  He casts a cloud on the Supreme Court's ability to judge a case by enumerating a number of decisions he deems “unjust”, these are:

This is the Supreme Court whose majority members are perceived -- rightly or wrongly -- to be always siding with the “elite,” the rich, the privileged, and/or people highly placed in the political ladder. And this perception has basis. It acquitted former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and former First Lady Imelda Marcos, granted bail to Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, adjudged absolute pardon for former President Joseph Estrada, excused Mayor Junjun Binay from sanction despite abandonment of the “Condonation doctrine,” and decided that Congressman Ronald Singson cannot be ousted as a representative because his drug-related-conviction did not concern a crime involving moral turpitude. 

This is also the Supreme Court whose majority ruled against the coconut farmers and in favor of Danding Cojuangco in the coco-levy case because, among others, there was no showing that the latter was one of the “close associates of President Marcos” -- prompting former Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, now the Ombudsman, to say that “the argument that Cojuangco was not the subordinate or close associate of the Marcoses is the biggest joke to hit the country.”

And more recently, it is the Supreme Court which decided that the dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos, whose regime looted our national treasury and ushered in a period of summary execution, forced disappearance,  torture and gross violation of human rights against the Filipino people,  be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. 

The problem with such an enumeration is that all it does is simply to list down a number of cases he disagrees with, without explaining why the court decided in such a manner, what the merits of the winning party were, et cetera.  In other words, Sta. Maria is being unfair to the Supreme Court in casting a cloud upon their decision and future decisions without actually explaining the merits or his side.  Further, in making a list of decisions he does not agree with, Sta. Maria is delving into the field of statistics and probabilities, and such arguments cannot hold water if you took the whole "sample size" into account:  How many more decisions do you think the Supreme Court made that upheld the rights of the poor, or otherwise, decisions that Sta. Maria would agree with?  In other words, Sta. Maria committed another non sequitur.

In doing this, Atty. Sta. Maria, in spite of his “lofty” motives must always remember his Legal Ethics.  Specifically, Canon 11, Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states:

CANON 11  A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.

x x x

Rule 11.04  A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.

Sta. Maria, in writing his column, violated this rule.  He very publicly imputed an ill motive to the Supreme Court and drew conclusions based on immaterial circumstances, i.e. very public speculation by the Vice President.  

Furthermore, Sta. Maria also violated Canon 13, Rule 13.02 of the same code which states:

CANON 13  A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the Court.

x x x

Rule 13.04  A lawyer shall not make public statements in media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.

Admittedly, this case is sub-judice (something he calls out in his article and yet he himself violates.  What a hypocrite!), So Sta. Maria is clearly trying to preempt the Supreme Court in its decision and to poison the well in case of an unfavorable decision.


In fairness to Mr. Sta. Maria, he isn't one of the counsels or a party involved in these cases, so he may escape censure from the Supreme Court itself.  Nevertheless, for an experienced lawyer, drawing the wrong conclusions out of pure speculation and then skirting the very limits of legal ethics to air out these conclusions must be embarrassing.

No wonder his books on civil law are gathering dust on Rex Bookstore shelves. 

In defense of a contrary decision

As to the possibility of an ouster, I believe the only way this would happen is if the Supreme Court, acting as the PET would order a recount.  Mr. Sta. Maria believes that the facts and circumstances do not warrant a recount.  I believe otherwise and that Mr. Sta. Maria is simply affected by his bias.  

If you asked me, I would say that the true test of impartiality or lack of bias of a court decision is if it passes the “role reversal” test.  The role reversal test is fairly straightforward, in fiction, John Grisham used this in his book, A Time to Kill, where an African American in the deep south was facing trial for the murder of white rednecks who raped his daughter.  [spoiler alert] The protagonist used the insanity defense claiming that he was driven to insanity by the rape of his daughter leading to the redneck’s murder in a fit of insanity. In that book, the swing vote in the jury came from a woman who pleaded to the all white jury to close their eyes and imagine that the rapists were black and the victim was white.  [end spoiler] 

In this electoral protest, let us reverse the roles:  Leni is accusing Marcos of cheating, she alleged that he bought out smartmatic and tampered with the machines; dubious algorithmic progression in the increase of Marcos’ votes; and mysterious “zero” votes in some precincts as well as missing voters in a hotly contested and divisive election; with all of the machinery and infrastructure in the hands of the opposing party.  In your opinion, would a recount be called for?  Logically, you would be in favor of a recount.  Moreover, a lot of people in both camps are quite anxious to know the truth about what transpired during the elections.