I BECAME acquainted with Professor Tony La Viña as a colleague at the Ateneo School of Government (ASOG). We were never close since his batch at Ateneo was way senior than mine. But I found the guy an honest, humble and generous human being. His tenure at ASOG brought in innovations, social capital and academic recognition for our school. In a few years, ASOG became one of the premier educational institutions in the country, and Tony La Viña was pivotal to its ascendancy.
When he took it upon himself to defend the mother-and-son politicians, Sen. Loren Legarda and Rep. Leandro Leviste, the progressive and Yellow forces pilloried and maligned Tony. Although there is no need for him to justify his decision, his integrity is being attacked by critics and trolls in social media. From where I stand, Tony’s choice is his alone, and as a lawyer, he can choose his clients — even if the public perceives that his clients don’t deserve to be defended.
The irony of this episode is that the people orchestrating this attack on Tony were once his allies in the progressive and Yellow movement. They misconstrued his defense of Legarda and Leviste as betrayal of his solid record of defending the oppressed, such as farmers, fisherfolk, laborers and gold miners. His reputation for defending these people drew the animosity of my friends in the security sector — frequently red-tagging Tony as a leftist supporter. And now, he is being accused of defending corrupt officials and plunderers.
Yet, it is easy to cast scathing criticisms at Tony’s decision to defend his friend Senator Legarda because it is inconsistent with his decades-long advocacy to fight corruption in government and defend the defenseless. However, Tony’s lawyering for the mother-and-son is not anathema to his personal beliefs and principles.
Indeed, there may be reasons why his decision resonates with his character as a person. First, Tony is a bona fide lawyer, and in fact, he placed third in the 1989 bar exams. In his Code of Ethics, he has the moral duty to defend those accused under our laws. Second, his anti-corruption crusade does not entail him prejudging the guilt of people charged with corruption, even if they are deemed unpopular. As a defense lawyer, Tony is duty-bound to help ensure that the truth is tested through due process rather than propaganda. Third, there have been prominent lawyers in our history who defended unpopular defendants, and they were vindicated by public opinion. Jose “Pepe” Diokno fought for Sen. Ninoy Aquino during martial law; Estelito Mendoza served as chief counsel to ousted President Joseph Estrada during his impeachment trial; and Dean Antonio Coronel represented former first lady Imelda Marcos in numerous cases. And finally, such bandwagon style of ganging up on the defendant’s lawyer is not healthy for the rule of law. The mob mentality, especially in social media, teaches our youth the wrong way of resolving conflict through public condemnation rather than legal channels. As the legal principle goes, “even the guilty have the right to a proper defense.”
But why has such an arrogant and virulent culture become so entrenched in our collective consciousness?
The People Power I has been captured by the Yellow forces since February 1986. The narrative that they saved the nation from dictatorship and reinstated democracy is, to me, pure hogwash. In reality, they have excluded those who were not aligned with their views and persecuted all those they believed were enemies of their “holy-than-thou” narrative. Anything they perceive as against their political religion has been cut down to pieces. Tony La Viña is unfortunately one of the sons of the People Power I uprising, who is now being devoured by the revolution he once fought for.
This is why many Filipinos have found the Yellows and progressives too disconnected and tone-deaf to the realities of their problems. Now, the same people who are promoting their ill-founded EDSA Yellow narratives are attacking any political target they see as an obstacle to restoring themselves to power. And this is why there is an anticipation for a third force to emerge — outside the traditional EDSA narrative — in the 2028 elections. Transformative leaders, such as Vico Sotto and Benjamin Magalong, could chart a better direction for the country — far from the toxic and divisive nature of these People Power I zealots.
I don’t really need to defend Tony since he is capable enough to defend himself. But I am defending his right to lawyer for his chosen client because we still live in a democracy after all — the very democracy our ancestors fought for EDSA, and not the democracy that has been hijacked by their so-called messiahs.