S1L26 – The Doctrine of Forgiveness, feat. Miss Kata Ngahan
Miss Kata Ngahan, are you around…?”
“I’m present, sir. I never miss your class, it’s a pleasure and a signal pride for me to be sitting here and learning from a consummate advocate of blind justice!”
The way the whole class instantly burst out laughing before I could even say a word told me very few of her classmates agreed with this tall gangly girl from Mabalacat, Pampanga.
“Flattery will get you nowhere, Miss Ngahan,” I said, “especially since I know you are an English major who can’t wait to show off her dazzling mastery of the language….(long thinking pause)… ‘signal pride’?”
“Yes, sir, ‘signal pride’—it’s a colloquialism that derives from—”
“No, no, no—never mind, never mind,” I had to interrupt her otherwise she could talk the wallpaper off the wall. She reminds me of Winston Churchill once castigating a loud woman for talking too much. The woman said, “Aw, you uncouth old man, if I were your wife I should put poison in your tea!” to which Churchill replied, “and if I were your husband, madam, I should drink it!”
Anyway, I wanted to discuss ELECTION LAW with the class, so I started, “April 16, 2016—does that date evoke any significance to you, Miss Ngahan?”
Just like Miss Deema Niwala—and every other girl in any other law class I think—you can count on this girl to have read all cases I assign them to read, so the answer came quick and furious.
“Sir, April 16, 2016 is the cutoff date when you can no longer invoke the ‘doctrine of forgiveness.’ It used to be when an elected public official is removed from office because of an administrative case, and then later he runs for office again and gets re-elected, his guilt on the administrative case is deemed erased. He can serve his new elective term.”
“Anybody here disagrees with Miss Ngahan?” I saw Deema raise her hand.
“Miss Deema Niwala? This is a surprise, I would have thought you would agree with your BFF here…what’s up?”
“Kata is mostly correct, sir, except the part where she said the guilt in the administrative case is erased…”
“It is NOT erased?”
“No, sir. The official who was removed is still guilty but his penalty should not go beyond removal from office. It should not include disqualification from public office because administrative penalties have no automatic civil interdiction component.”
The class went, “Oooooooh…!” so I said, “if you use terms like ‘no automatic civil interdiction component’ Deema your classmates’ brains start to bleed.” Laughter by the whole class followed by classic Deema eyerolling.
“Does anybody else have another explanation why a person who has been removed could run for reelection?” I saw Jack Makataruz’s hand go up.
“Mr. Makataruz, the ‘signal pride’ of the Mohawk tribe of Bauko, what do you have to say?”
“Sir, ti naawatak ngamin idiay kaso—”
“Oh, you mean to say ‘sir, the way I understand the case is’…?”
“I’m sorry, sir, nalipatak nga imbaga yu gayam what you are not allowed to talk like in court, I will not allow you to talk like in recitation…”
“You are a walking contradiction, Mr. Makataruz, but continue.”
“Sir, whatever offense has been committed by a public official, he is considered ‘forgiven’ by his voting constituents if they re-elect him. And then the court has no business removing a re-elected official. It would be violating the mandate given to him by the sovereign people.”
“Very good Mr. Makataruz. See? You can manifest in perfect lawyer English! Take note of that, Deema,” I said eliciting a displeased made-face from two people, Deema and Juan Dimacaawat.
“But I’m glad you mentioned the Sovereign People, because that reminds us of the true authors of the Constitution. Does anybody know the origin of this ‘doctrine of forgiveness’ thingie?” Mr. Juan Dimacaawat raised his LEFT hand. The fellow is left-handed. “Yes, Juan?”
“Sir, it was first explained in the ‘Pascual Case’ way back when we were still under the 1935 Constitution. People were more forgiving back then in that genteel era and anomalies were so trivial. Even if you just brought home the office stapler, that’s an administrative offense to them already.”
“As opposed to today…?”
“As opposed to today, sir, when anomalies involve stealing millions, sometimes even billions of pesos…” then suddenly somebody just blurted out…
“and landgrabbing wide tracts of forestlands on the slopes of Mount Santo Tomas after cutting down hundreds of pine trees!!”
“Demaaa..! I did not call on you to recite!”
“Sorry, sir, I couldn’t resist… I had to say it.” Classic eyeroll again.
“Anyway, back to you Mr. Dimacaawat. So you’re saying the doctrine is outmoded? Why? What’s your basis?”
“Sir, our new 1987 Constitution raised the bar for public officers. It imposed a new time reference for when public officers must act responsibly, the need to act with honesty is continuing under the provisions on public accountability…”
“Read it, Juan, read that part,” I ordered.
“Article XI, Section 1, sir: Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”
“That sounds like the Constitution of Mars to me, or Jupiter, or Pluto, “ I joked, but nobody laughed.
“Aaw, we’re sorry, sir, were you hurt we didn’t laugh at your joke?” Deema said condescendingly.
“No, no, no—I’m good. I’m alright. I just thought it was funny we have a constitutional provision that reads like THAT and yet you have to go all the way up to the Supreme Court just to request for a copy of the Statement of Assets Liabilities and Net worth (SALN) of the President so we could find out how much money he really has stashed in those bank accounts, and have your petition be denied hahahaha…!” I said, hoping to jumpstart some chuckles.
But the whole class just sat there looking at me straight in the eyes in stone-cold silence.
Finally, Deema said, “See? That wasn’t funny at all, sir.”
I hate this class.
The author is a writer and lawyer based in Baguio City, Philippines. Former editor of the Gold Ore and Baguio City Digest, professor of journalism, political science and law at Baguio Colleges Foundation (BCF). He is a photographer and video documentarist. He has a YouTube channel called “Parables and Reason”