06 December 2005
OPINION: Pangalatoks & Ilocanos: D’f’rent views
AFTER ALLBehn Fer.Hortaleza, Jr.
WE do not know if there is a precedent case in jurisprudence of the courtroom drama that unfolded in the sala of Judge Ulysses Raciles Butuyan the past two weeks climaxing in the sensational dismissal of the cases against the suspects in the killing of Pasig City lady Judge Estrellita Paas last Nov. 30. We’re quite sure though that what happened further enriches the study of law in these parts.
The best way to describe the court “clash” between Butuyan (who was our jolly, articulate neighbor-tenant here at Vicar Hotel, and a star columnist of this paper too, before he left his law office to become Tayug regional trial court judge) and private prosecutor Ronald Paas, son of the slain lady judge, is that it was a scintillating collision between an irresistible force and an immovable object..Who’s what between them we leave that for the reader to discern.
Our layman’s perception of the whole thing is that the judge -- who may or may not have been piqued by the arguments and style of young lawyer Paas in insisting that he (Butuyan) issue a warrant of arrest for the two suspected killers of his mother – was not satisfied about the police solution of the celebrated case. Otherwise, he could have easily given in to the Paas request and be done with it.
In plain words, Butuyan must have thought the accused were “fall guys” or that at best, Elmer Cabilles’ having supposedly “confessed” to the crime to his wife, take note, not directly to the police, had serious flaws, legally speaking.
On the other hand, lawyer Paas must have had reasons to suspect Butuyan of “biasness” for having already noted earlier on that the prosecution’s witness(es) testimonies were based largely on hearsay. That, plus the judge’s refusal to issue a warrant of arrest until after he has questioned the witnesses to establish “probable cause” for the issuance of an arrest warrant, may have engendered the young Paas’ suspicion – correctly or wrongly – that the judge was playing partial.
Legal minds we’ve talked to on the case, based on the news reports, say what should be interesting is how the higher courts will rule on the matter of whether or not Butuyan was right in proceeding to hear and summarily decide on dismissing the case even while a motion – though formally filed rather late – was precisely seeking his inhibition from hearing the case.
* * * * *
Going by the announced results of the consultations done by the Consultative Commssion last Friday at the Regency Hotel, Pangasinenses seem to be more liberal when it comes to allowing foreign ownership of industries and exploitation of natural resources than their regional neighbors up in the two Ilocos provinces who are for maintaining the present ratio, more or less, of 60 percent Filipino ownership of businesses with foreigners only allowed up to 40 % share.
Culturally speaking, this preference is quite understandable or expected since compared to Pangalatoks who are generally gregarious and outgoing, Ilocanos are conservative when it comes to accepting changes, much less, initiating them.
You’ve all heard Vice Mayor and Commissioner Alvin Fernandez, Speaker JDV, the “other” Commissioner (Immigration) Al Fernandez and yes, even the maverick partyman, Mayor-Businessman Benjie Lim, singing hosannahs to the benefits of changing the constitutional provisions on national patrimony/ To a man, they say this is a means of encouraging more foreign investments in the Philippines.
True-blue Ilocanos who’ve heard them take the ultra liberal position must have gasped and made the sign of the cross at how the Pangalatoks in full vigor and unison, could mouth such a statement of heresy concerning their highly cherished national patrimony.
