By Philip M. Lustre Jr.
Author's Notes: This article was originally published in the Philippine Catholic Veritas, June 1-15, 2014 issue. During those days, the nagging issues were about the plunder charges against several lawmakers, who were involved in the P10 billion scam of their pork barrel funds, called Priority Development Assistance Fund. This article sought to explain the social processes on the nagging issues of the day. Not many people understand that mass media, both traditional and nontraditional, constitute the so-called court of public opinion. Hence, this article attempts to explain the dynamics of the two courts: the court of public opinion and, of course, the court of law.
Senators Bong Revilla, Jinggoy Estrada and Juan Ponce Enrile, his co-accused, and allies have the right to stop people from calling them the plunderers. The Sandiganbayan is to start its full blown public hearings on the plunder charges lodged against them. They have yet to face conviction of the alleged crimes imputed on them.
This urgent call is not new. It has been raised in previous plunder and corruption charges against ranking state officials. But the three senators and their ilk possess the legal ground to make that appeal in the absence of any official court verdict.
The court of law, or the Sandiganbayan, has assumed jurisdiction and control over the plunder charges against them in June, 2014 after months of study and evaluation by the Office of the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman was to organize the volumes of evidence it possesses before it had filed plunder charges against Revilla, Estrada and Enrile and their cohorts. The hearing of their cases started in late June, when Revilla and his co-accused faced the arraignment proceedings.
They have entered the plea of "not guilty." Henceforth, a protracted legal battle is to ensue as the three senators and their ilk are to attempt to prove their innocence on the charges of plunder. Their retinue of highly paid lawyers, or "abogados de campanilla," as they are called in the circles of the rich and not so rich, are expected to draw varying legal strategies from their bag of tricks to ensure the acquittal of their high profile clients .
Different dynamics
But not everything depends on the court of law. The court of public opinion exists side by side with the court of law. Their coexistence is however not mutually exclusive, as each court draws inputs from the other. In many instances, the court of law is influenced by the other court, or vice versa, although neither court would admit it.
The two courts are different in practically all counts. They have different dynamics. The court of law is characterized by its rigid structures and rules, all defined by the strictures of the law. The judge sits in the middle of the courtroom and presides over formal hearings, which would be made public or private depending on his judgment. Dressed in his elegant robe, the judge listens to the two contending parties, the prosecution and the defense, as they perform legal skirmishes.
Broadly, the prosecution panel works to prove the guilt of the accused available by showing pieces of evidence and testimonies initiated by key witnesses to warrant punishment for the accused. On its shoulders lie the burden of proof.
The defense panel does the opposite, as it disproves the allegations against the accused. After the two sides have presented their respective arguments, the judge renders a decision. It could side with either party.
The rigidity of the legal processes leads to prolonged legal battles to the exhaustion of the contending parties. It is normal to see legal battles lasting for years - or decades.
After the judge has rendered his decision, either party could lodge an appeal before the appellate court, prolonging the legal battle. Or it could raise another appeal to the highest court - the Supreme Court - when the decision of the appellate court did not satisfy either party.
Spontaneity and loose structure
The court of public opinion operates very differently from the court of law. It is characterized by its spontaneity and loose structure. It is dominated by the mass media, which dishes out every conceivable detail about a particular issue to inform the people.
Unlike the courts of law, which has a presiding judge and two main protagonists, the judges in the court of public opinion are no less than the multitudes of anonymous and faceless people, who painstakingly watch issues of national, regional, or global significance. In some ways, the mass media too becomes sort of the judge, when it renders it own judgment.
The two courts differ on the nature of punishment they impose. When a court renders a judgment of law and punishes an accused, the entire judicial system could be expected to follow the decision.
When it rules that an accused is guilty of the alleged crime, the judge punishes him by imposing fines or a jail term - all on the basis of the letter of the law. A jail term is a jail term; the accused is expected to enter the prison and suffer for a specific period.
The court of public opinion does not provide a jail term for the main and minor characters involved in an issue of public interest. It has no power to do it; it derives its power on moral suasion.
But when the court of public opinion renders its judgment, the cacophony of boos from ordinary citizens could be felt and seen immediately. Moreover, the public ostracism of these characters follows.
Social isolation becomes the usual consequence; they become pariahs. They are treated as social outcasts. They hardly become part of mainstream society.
In short, the court of public opinion could be very powerful too just like the court of law. Anything that goes into the process, which only the court of public opinion possesses, could become the talk of the town, where moral sanctions become the usual recourse.
In many instances, topics of public interest that undergo legal processes and litigation in a court of law are equally examined by the public scalpel in the court of public opinion.
This urgent call is not new. It has been raised in previous plunder and corruption charges against ranking state officials. But the three senators and their ilk possess the legal ground to make that appeal in the absence of any official court verdict.
The court of law, or the Sandiganbayan, has assumed jurisdiction and control over the plunder charges against them in June, 2014 after months of study and evaluation by the Office of the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman was to organize the volumes of evidence it possesses before it had filed plunder charges against Revilla, Estrada and Enrile and their cohorts. The hearing of their cases started in late June, when Revilla and his co-accused faced the arraignment proceedings.
They have entered the plea of "not guilty." Henceforth, a protracted legal battle is to ensue as the three senators and their ilk are to attempt to prove their innocence on the charges of plunder. Their retinue of highly paid lawyers, or "abogados de campanilla," as they are called in the circles of the rich and not so rich, are expected to draw varying legal strategies from their bag of tricks to ensure the acquittal of their high profile clients .
Different dynamics
But not everything depends on the court of law. The court of public opinion exists side by side with the court of law. Their coexistence is however not mutually exclusive, as each court draws inputs from the other. In many instances, the court of law is influenced by the other court, or vice versa, although neither court would admit it.
The two courts are different in practically all counts. They have different dynamics. The court of law is characterized by its rigid structures and rules, all defined by the strictures of the law. The judge sits in the middle of the courtroom and presides over formal hearings, which would be made public or private depending on his judgment. Dressed in his elegant robe, the judge listens to the two contending parties, the prosecution and the defense, as they perform legal skirmishes.
Broadly, the prosecution panel works to prove the guilt of the accused available by showing pieces of evidence and testimonies initiated by key witnesses to warrant punishment for the accused. On its shoulders lie the burden of proof.
The defense panel does the opposite, as it disproves the allegations against the accused. After the two sides have presented their respective arguments, the judge renders a decision. It could side with either party.
The rigidity of the legal processes leads to prolonged legal battles to the exhaustion of the contending parties. It is normal to see legal battles lasting for years - or decades.
After the judge has rendered his decision, either party could lodge an appeal before the appellate court, prolonging the legal battle. Or it could raise another appeal to the highest court - the Supreme Court - when the decision of the appellate court did not satisfy either party.
Spontaneity and loose structure
The court of public opinion operates very differently from the court of law. It is characterized by its spontaneity and loose structure. It is dominated by the mass media, which dishes out every conceivable detail about a particular issue to inform the people.
Unlike the courts of law, which has a presiding judge and two main protagonists, the judges in the court of public opinion are no less than the multitudes of anonymous and faceless people, who painstakingly watch issues of national, regional, or global significance. In some ways, the mass media too becomes sort of the judge, when it renders it own judgment.
The two courts differ on the nature of punishment they impose. When a court renders a judgment of law and punishes an accused, the entire judicial system could be expected to follow the decision.
When it rules that an accused is guilty of the alleged crime, the judge punishes him by imposing fines or a jail term - all on the basis of the letter of the law. A jail term is a jail term; the accused is expected to enter the prison and suffer for a specific period.
The court of public opinion does not provide a jail term for the main and minor characters involved in an issue of public interest. It has no power to do it; it derives its power on moral suasion.
But when the court of public opinion renders its judgment, the cacophony of boos from ordinary citizens could be felt and seen immediately. Moreover, the public ostracism of these characters follows.
Social isolation becomes the usual consequence; they become pariahs. They are treated as social outcasts. They hardly become part of mainstream society.
In short, the court of public opinion could be very powerful too just like the court of law. Anything that goes into the process, which only the court of public opinion possesses, could become the talk of the town, where moral sanctions become the usual recourse.
In many instances, topics of public interest that undergo legal processes and litigation in a court of law are equally examined by the public scalpel in the court of public opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment