PUBLIC officials must not be onion-skinned. Criticism goes with the job. The salary of a government official or employee is sustained by the sweat of the citizenry. It is their collective right to demand excellence in public service.
The judiciary is part of the government triangle that is maintained by our taxes. It is the branch that settles controversies when parties to a dispute cannot come to an agreement among themselves. Certainly, as part of government it must not be immune to public scrutiny and periodic assessments.
***
Judges are seldom heard talking to the media. It is not part of their job to announce decisions to the public. They are wired to be read rather than seen.
Judicial proceedings become public fodder only when public interest is generated by the subject matter of the case, or the notoriety of the parties involved.
One such case is the recent dismissal of a petition filed by the Department of Justice seeking judicial declaration that the Communist Party of the Philippines – New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) are “terrorist” organizations.
***
In a decision rendered more than a week ago, Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar of the Regional Trial Court of Manila said that government was unable to prove that the CPP-NPA was organized to engage in terrorism.
According to her, the CPP-NPA is engaged in rebellion and the acts of violence accompanying their activities are merely a means to achieve their ultimate objective of gaining power.
Means is not synonymous with purpose. Otherwise stated, armed struggle is only a means to achieve the CPP’s purpose; it is not the purpose of the creation of the CPP.
***
According to the Supreme Court, the state of rebellion results from the commission of a series or combination of acts and events, past, present and future, primarily motivated by ethnic, religious, political or class divisions which incites violence, disturbs peace and order, and poses serious threat to the security of the nation.
The ultimate objective of the malefactors, said the court, is to seize power from the government, and specifically “for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.”
***
For coming up with that decision that highlights the difference between terrorism and rebellion, Judge Malagar was pilloried in social media by a former spokesperson of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC).
In a Facebook post Lorraine Badoy said: “So if I kill this judge and I do so out of my political belief that all allies of the CPP NPA NDF of the must be killed because there is no difference in my mind between a member of the CPP NPA NDF and their friends, please be lenient with me.”
That post was met with disapproval from the legal community. It was interpreted to have called for violence against a sitting judge.
***
Regardless of one’s opinion over the soundness or correctness of Judge Malagar’s decision there is zero excuse for inciting bodily harm against a member of the judiciary whose job is to render justice without regard to stressors and extra-legal considerations.
A democratic government requires an independent judiciary. Judicial decisions are fair game to public opinion, but threats to life traverse a line that the constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech cannot shelter.
The Supreme Court correctly reacted by sternly warning those who continue to incite violence through social media and other means which endanger the lives of judges and their families./PN
