All humans have basic rights. Criminals are humans. Therefore, criminals have basic rights.
This syllogism, although to my mind is valid, is for some hard to accept, or is simply unacceptable. For how can someone possess a right and yet trample upon another's right? How can someone's constitutional right to due process be protected when other's right to life is violated? Which right should be given more weight? To whom should the balance be tilted?
Take the Vic Siman et al ambush or rub-out or checkpoint-gone-bad (depending on whom you are listening to), which happened in Atimonan, Quezon on January 6, 2013. Vic Siman and 12 others who were with him were believed to be members of a criminal group.
If indeed Vic Siman et al were members of a criminal group, then they shall punished. But how? The answer is, they shall be punished in ways that do not violate the law and the Constitution. The rule of law must be upheld at all times.
That criminals must be pursued is beyond debate. But, to cite Justice Isagani Cruz, “Zeal in the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods that the Constitution itself abhors."
Showing posts with label rule of law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rule of law. Show all posts
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Sunday, September 27, 2009
To hold or not to hold
When President Obama decided to release what is touted as the Torture Memos, he was faced with a dilemma: to hold or not to hold those who authorized the memos accountable.
There are those who argue that President Obama should, because it's an affront to the basic law of the land, the Constitution. On the other hand, there are those who argue that President Obama should not, because it just distracts the administration from dealing with more pressing matters, chief of which the battered economy.
On the January 11th edition of ABC’s “This Week, when asked whether he will "...appoint a special prosecutor...to independently investigate the greatest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping," the then President-elect Obama didn't give a black or white answer.
"We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth," he said. "And obviously we’re going to be looking at past practices and I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering [up]."
But Paul Krugman, the Nobel Laureate slash economist slash blogger, begged to differ.
"I’m sorry," Krugman wrote, "but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power."
Why I'm bringing this up?
Because now that we are about to choose, among others, our next president (sana walang umaswang sa election), one question that we might find ourselves asking is, "Will the next president hold the past administration accountable for its many abuses?"
It's too early to say if someone will, but based on the presidentiables' earlier remarks, it seems that nobody won't.
There are those who argue that President Obama should, because it's an affront to the basic law of the land, the Constitution. On the other hand, there are those who argue that President Obama should not, because it just distracts the administration from dealing with more pressing matters, chief of which the battered economy.
On the January 11th edition of ABC’s “This Week, when asked whether he will "...appoint a special prosecutor...to independently investigate the greatest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping," the then President-elect Obama didn't give a black or white answer.
"We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth," he said. "And obviously we’re going to be looking at past practices and I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering [up]."
But Paul Krugman, the Nobel Laureate slash economist slash blogger, begged to differ.
"I’m sorry," Krugman wrote, "but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power."
Why I'm bringing this up?
Because now that we are about to choose, among others, our next president (sana walang umaswang sa election), one question that we might find ourselves asking is, "Will the next president hold the past administration accountable for its many abuses?"
It's too early to say if someone will, but based on the presidentiables' earlier remarks, it seems that nobody won't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)