It would’ve been silly to be surprised by the acquittal of the son of Justice Secretary Boying Remulla on charges of illegal drug possession. That this sentence even exists is its own absurdity: at any other time, and at any other place, a government official, especially of an agency that has to do with Justice, would be the first to step down given a case of this magnitude, if only to be able to say that his position should not be reason for the wheels of justice to turn any differently for his son Juanito Jose Diaz Remulla III.
But we know by now that Secretary Remulla staying on as Justice Secretary is a symptom of what has ailed governance since the Duterte years: a lack of shame from our government officials, which is to say their ability to take on and keep jobs regardless of whether they deserve it, or have credentials or credibility, and really, their predisposition to keep political power on sheer kapal-ng-mukha.
And so it seems more productive to see these moments as an opportunity to talk about Justice in this country and highlight how it applies only to a few, how due process and speedy trials only work for those who have connections to those in power. The best way to prove it would be through the experience of our political prisoners, grown exponentially during Duterte years.
We are being told by Atty Pearlito Campanilla, Remulla’s lawyer, that there was nothing “speedy” about this trial, claiming that they simply moved “in accordance with a Supreme Court rule (of 2017) of dispensing with cases within a period of 75 days” especially for non-bailable offenses.
But this begs question: why has Leila De Lima languished in jail, along with hundreds of political prisoners? Former Senator Leila has been in jail since February 24 2017. And among other political prisoners: Vic Ladlad has been in jail since November 8 2018. Rey Casambre has been in jail since December 7 2018.
Across these four people, what we have are cases that would only be believable to those who deem them guilty to begin with, instead of innocent until proven guilty. It is also clear that were “a speedy trial” the rule and not the exception, then all these four, alongside other political prisoners, would’ve been long-freed.
Ladlad was arrested on trumped up charges of illegal possession of firearms; none of his prints would be on any of the firearms he allegedly possessed. Casambre was arrested for “an alleged murder and attempted murder case in Davao Oriental,” a strategy that was normalized in the time of Duterte where questionable warrants were used to arrest activists.
Anti-Left propagandists Badoy, Quiboloy etal. would of course insist: these activists and peace consultants are terrorists. That’s also them refusing to heed the Manila Regional Trial Court’s decision, dated September 21 2022, where Judge Marlo Magdoza Malgar in 135 pages fleshed out the problem regarding the State’s (DOJ’s) insistence that the CPP-NPA-NDF are committing “acts of terrorism” as opposed to acts of rebellion: “acts of terrorism” are acts against the civilian population; acts of rebellion are done “to achieve a political purpose, directed at State agents and not against civilians.”
Judge Malgar also highlighted what was revealed by the testimonies of the witnesses of the DOJ itself: that on the one hand, there are above ground organizations; on the other, there are underground organizations. Those two are very different entities, and not everyone in the above ground organizations become part of the underground organizations. Certainly, not everyone in the above ground organizations even know of the underground organizations, and much less know of the CPP-NPA.
Judge Malgar also took a stand against red-tagging: “To automatically lump activists, mostly members of the above ground organizations as members of the CPP-NPA invariably constitute red-tagging.” Here, Malgar makes mention of how above ground organizations can “espouse valid societal change, without necessarily giving thought to ‘armed struggle’ or ‘violence’ aimed at overthrowing the government, as a means to achieve the same.”
This effectively puts into question the jailing of Ladlad and Casambre, along with other political prisoners who were arrested and detained for their beliefs and links to activist organizations, with government using false charges and questionable warrants.
Yet they remain imprisoned, through a public health crisis, and despite being senior citizens—the excuse that was used to keep Imelda Marcos out of jail, and Duterte’s ready excuse that he’s too old to jail with regard to accusations that he ordered the killing of citizens.
Closer to the younger Remulla’s case, if only because it is one that has to do with illegal drugs, is that of De Lima. She, who was one of Duterte’s first political prisoners, who was arrested for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002—but really, obviously, who is basically in jail for having dared to investigate Duterte’s drug war in Davao, and be critical of his drug war in Manila. In the course of her time in jail, De Lima has not only been given “special” treatment—the kind that violates each and every right she should have even as prisoner—the State’s witnesses against her have also recanted their testimonies.
Through his lawyers, Kerwin Espinosa said in April 28 2022, that he was “coerced, pressured, intimidated, and seriously threatened by the police” to deliver his statement against De Lima. Espinosa claimed he had “no choice but to fabricate the stories for fear of his life following the death of his father 18 days before the Senate hearing.” Rafael Ragos, another “witness,” has also has since taken back his testimony against De Lima, saying that it was “false and coerced” “upon the instructions of Secretary Aguirre.” Aguirre was Duterte’s first Justice Secretary.
And yet, here we are, still wondering how De Lima is still in jail. Like Ladlad and the Casambre, she has been denied a “speedy trial.” Like Ladlad and Casambre, there is enough new information (whether retracted testimonies, or court decisions) that already highlight the injustice of keeping her in jail. The acquittal of Remulla’s son was “on the ground of reasonable doubt.” It seems redundant to even state that at this point, it is clear to anyone that the release of political prisoners de Lima, Ladlad, and Casambre can stand on the same grounds.
In the decision on Remulla’s case, the RTC cites the Supreme Court:
The Court strongly supports the campaign of the governments against drug addiction and commends the efforts of our law enforcement officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals. The Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty alike against any manner of high-handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy their intentions. <emphasis mine>
Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the right of the individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty. <emphasis mine>
At no point were De Lima, Ladlad, and Casambre a risk to public order. And in the course of their time in jail, the reasons behind their arrest and detention have already been discredited and debunked.
What the case of the Justice Secretary’s son reminds us is that as far as Justice is concerned, we’re not just looking at how quickly and in their favor those wheels can turn for the powerful and privileged; we’re also being reminded of how, while this new Marcos leadership seems to have refused to talk about our political prisoners, and has kept at a rhetoric of unity and magnanimity, unless it shifts policy and perspective on citizens-as-critics, then it is no different from the fascist that was Duterte.
It bears repeating: there is no unity without Justice. ***