Protesting in Silence

Protesting in Silence

November 12, 2012

Barely three weeks ago, Congw. Gloria-Macapagal Arroyo was arraigned before the Sandiganbayan on account of the plunder case filed by the Ombudsman against her. Over the objection of her counsel, the Sandiganbayan proceeded with the arraignment by reading the criminal Information before her. She remained silent though during the whole process, ignoring the opportunity to state her innocence by pleading not guilty to the charge. Thus, the Sandiganbayan entered a plea of not guilty on her behalf in the record in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, an accused has two opportunities to personally address the court. The first comes in during the arraignment where he can declare his innocence by pleading not guilty after the court interpreter read the indictment against him. His next opportunity to personally protest his innocence will come much later during his turn to present evidence. In any other instance, his attorney would do the talking on his behalf.

The presence of the accused during the arraignment is indispensable. His right to be informed of the charge against him cannot be waived. And without an arraignment, the court will not acquire jurisdiction over his person and proceed to trial. It gives the accused a chance to protest his innocence in the inception of the proceeding. 

For various reasons, an accused may refuse to be arraigned or to give any plea during the arraignment. Some people prefer to protest their innocence by keeping their silence. In few instances in the past, such silent protest had been dramatic and full of political undertones. Dr. Jose Rizal and Sen. Benigno Aquino, Jr. used their silence to protest the jurisdiction of the military tribunals and the farcical proceedings against them. Other figures in history used it as a political statement and not merely as a legal strategy.

On the other hand, the silent protest of Congw. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is less dramatic and hardly noticed by the public. Not that her case before the Sandiganbayan is less controversial but the infamy that she has been suffering contributed to the light treatment by the media and the public of her defiance of the court’s proceeding. Her counsel aired her concerns and explained that the arraignment would affect her petition questioning the propriety of the plunder case before the Supreme Court (SC). She had asked the Sandiganbayan for the deferment of the arraignment or the reading of the criminal Information. However, since the SC has not issued any temporary restraining order (TRO), the arraignment proceeded as stated. The case is expected to proceed to trial in the coming days if the SC would not issue a TRO or grant the writ of prohibition that she has been praying for in her petition. Eventually, she will have to speak on her behalf, briefly or lengthily, when her turn to present evidence comes.

Well, silence may be her best defense after all. The infamy that she has suffered in the eyes of the public has placed her in an uncomfortable and precarious situation. In the minds of many, hers is no longer a presumption of innocence but one of guilt. And anyone who speaks of her innocence risks the condemnation of those who have convicted her even before the cases against her are filed in court. As such, she should be reminded to keep her silence. She would likely be put to further shame by the very words that she utters. Aptly, she should be advised: Speak not for anything that you will say can, and will, be used against you.

Yet, spectators should not rely on public opinion in predicting the outcome of the cases against her. Public opinions are constantly changing. They are not used as basis for deciding cases in courts. This is the reason why the administration of justice could not be entrusted to politicians who have the inclination to change their convictions even for the most trivial reason.  The dispensation of justice is a professional task. In almost all countries, cases are threshed out by, or with the help of, people especially trained in legal procedure. Even in the jury system, members of the jury are carefully selected and are housed for the duration of the trial to ensure that they will weigh the evidence with impartiality and reason.  The system is so designed to insulate the members of the jury from the comments and opinions of the general public.

In the next three years, we shall be hearing of legalese and legal antics trying to establish the merit and demerit of the cases against Congw. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Whether she would be acquitted or convicted of any of these charges are hard to predict at this time. The only thing that we can hope for would be that the proceedings and their results are legally and psychologically acceptable to sensible spectators like us. May the findings determine the conclusions in these cases, not the other way around. Or as the maxim puts it, let the facts dictate what the law should be, and not the opposite. Ex facto oritur ius!