AMONG the most recognizable personifications of justice is Justitia — a blindfolded woman holding a balance and wielding a sword. Lady Justice, as she is often called, represents impartiality. She is blind to the personalities before her and the whispers of status or power.
She weighs the evidence and the arguments fairly. Her sword stands for the authority of the rule of law. These are the hallmarks of justice.
It is easy to advocate for the rule of law when the outcome of a case is uncontroversial and popular. But the real threshold of justice is in the controversial and unpopular. The rule of law is tested when the outcome of a case may be unwelcomed by some sectors.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court acquitting former first lady Imelda Marcos embodies the level-headedness that Lady Justice signifies. The Supreme Court ruled that Imelda’s right to due process was violated when she was charged of certain crimes supposedly committed as a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa, but she was convicted for crimes allegedly committed as a Cabinet member.
The Supreme Court has long upheld the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. And the recent decision of the court reminds us that everyone has this right, including the former first lady.
Imelda was accused of violating Section 3 (h) of Republic Act 3019, particularly possession of financial or pecuniary interest prohibited by the Constitution. The prosecution claimed that Imelda participated in the management of several foundations, when Article IX, Section 8 of the 1973 Constitution prohibits cabinet members from participating in the management of any business. The Sandiganbayan found Imelda guilty.
In overturning the conviction, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of accurately alleging the public officer’s position when the charge involves the second mode of violating Section 3 (h) of Republic Act 3019. Among the elements of the offense are the position held by the accused and the constitutional prohibition applicable to such position.
The Court noted the disparity between the basis of Imelda’s conviction and the charges against her. She was convicted of violating the constitutional prohibition applicable to Cabinet members. However, she was charged in her capacity as a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa. Under the 1973 Constitution, the prohibition against the management of any business applies to Cabinet members, but not to members of the Interim Batasang Pambansa. Imelda, who was charged in her capacity as a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa, could not be convicted of violating a prohibition applicable to Cabinet members.
Even with the defects in the charges against Imelda, the Court also considered the evidence presented by the prosecution and ruled that they failed to establish Imelda’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the pieces of documentary evidence retrieved from the Swiss bank were not properly authenticated. The prosecution witnesses had no knowledge of the execution or contents of the documents.
As a final point in its thorough ruling, the Supreme Court found that Imelda must still be acquitted even assuming the evidence can be considered. The existence of a business is an essential element of the offense since that is the constitutional proscription. A business, ordinarily understood, involves the sale of goods or services for profit. According to the court, the prosecution failed to show that the foundations were operating as businesses.
There was no proof that the foundations were offering any goods or services.
Succinctly put, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Imelda for taking part in the management of businesses, when the prosecution failed to show that the foundations were businesses.
The case is impactful on many levels. For one, it evinces the independence of our sitting magistrates. The Court rejected many of Imelda’s arguments, including the claimed violations of her rights to a speedy trial and speedy disposition of cases, as well as the supposed repeal of her charges’ legal basis. It just so happened that the ones it upheld were enough to acquit Imelda.
It is also interesting that all the voting justices are Duterte appointees. It seems that the ongoing Marcos-Duterte feud did not affect the outcome of the case.
This case also reinforces our faith in the judiciary and its steadfast resolve to protect the rights of the accused. The public can trust that the Supreme Court would require respect for the rights of everyone, no matter how divisive the ruling may be. This decision echoes the practice of the court to acquit when there is a violation of substantive rights, as it has done in numerous drugs cases filed in connection with the drug war.
As the Supreme Court reminded in its final statement, when the Court dons its robe, personal beliefs are set aside. Lady Justice, after all, is blind.
