The recent acquittal of high-profile personalities accused of corruption in the PDAF scandal gives rise to the question: Do prolonged delays in the trial of corruption cases favor the accused?
When the trial of a corruption case takes a decade or more, witnesses are vulnerable: their memories can fade, they can easily lose interest in testifying (“kasi wala namang nangyayari”); and they may no longer be available to testify because they have to work abroad, get sick, or die of natural or unnatural causes. Prosecutors are just as vulnerable. Like witnesses, they can lose interest in prosecuting the case, or succumb to offers of promotion or financial gain in exchange for “going easy” on the accused. Physical and electronic evidence are also at risk: they can be misplaced, deleted or tampered. And as the years pass, the attention of the media and the public wanes, which gives officials accused of corruption the space to “operate” – to use all means, fair or foul, to sabotage the prosecution’s case or influence the decision-makers and eventually secure an acquittal.
Prolonged corruption trials not only favor the accused; they also destroy public confidence in the justice system, and corrode the people’s faith in the ability of the government to hold corrupt officials accountable—paving the way for corruption to be normalized and for impunity to take hold.
When the judiciary recently appeared before the House of Representatives to defend its budget, I was shocked to learn that there are hundreds of corruption cases that have been pending in the Sandiganbayan for over 20 years. This is totally unacceptable in a country like ours where the people are demanding public accountability.
No corruption trial should last longer than 3 years maximum; and no appeal should take longer than 2 years. Corruption cases deserve the highest priority because the victims of corruption are all of us—the people—ordinary citizens whose taxes should go to improving their quality of life, not fattening the wallets of those entrusted with government authority.
When justice is delayed in corruption cases, justice is not only denied—it is desecrated. Kaya nananawagan tayo sa Korte Suprema to impose strict time limits on the trials and appeals of corruption cases.
@StaticeKyu@pusanggala007@account_dami Chel Diokno is not running as Senator. He’s Akbayan’s first nominee, so please vote Akbayan for partylist, 51 sa balota.
@JuanPinoy78 @ryanjdq Twice sya nag-law school, actually. Yung first, sa Ateneo, tapos pumasa ng bar. Second, nag-masters sya sa Notre Dame Law School (US). Kiladkad ko syang mag-lamierda sa Mexico, pero ayun summa cum laude pa rin.
@katipunera I agree. Na-try nako when PAL gave it as gifts for their anniv. Wanted to buy Pero bigla inatake ako ng GERD. 😩 Hope to visit their shop at BGC soon.
@ABSCBNNews Who’s teaching Philosophy here? Pwede n’yo to gamitin for your exam on logical fallacies. Is it red herring, straw man, slippery slope, appeal to emotion, false dilemma? Or all of the above? Grabeng tumbling nyo just to defend the indefensible.
@chickenhearted_@shannyqt Invoke the anti-red tape act in your letter. Submit two letters, and request that your copy be marked received by DA, so you have proof and for reckoning of the number of days. By having proof of your transaction with them, this might push them to act.
@chickenhearted_@shannyqt I suggest you help your father write the DA. Check DA’s citizen’s charter how many days they are supposed to process the financial assistance. Kung wala, use the general timeline in the anti-red tape act which is 5 to 10 days.