SC: Justice served if you think Webb et al guilty
Court Administrator and spokesman Justice Midas Marquez told reporters in a news conference that those saying "justice was not served" because of the high court's ruling, in the belief that Webb and company are indeed guilty of the murders of Estrellita, Carmela and Anna Marie Jennifer, might want to consider the fact that a sentence of reclusion perpetuamay be served a maximum of 14 years on the premise that the person convicted of final judgment is able to avail of good conduct time allowance or GCTA.
Is the PNoy Communications Group syndrome finally infecting/affecting the SC? This statement from the SC spokesman is just unnecessary and stupid. It only adds up to the heat. Fuels the tension. Even the Webbs who are most probably by now enjoying a mood for celebration would surely find this statement bemocking. Does it mean the Supreme Court could have just decided to pass on an acquittal decision for that sort of logic? Does the Supreme Court spokesman really have to say that? Does he really need to rationalize or feed the public "junk food for thought" type statements when the SC could have just kept its silence and maintain its pride as an ultimate deciding body in questions of law.
I like that Midas Marquez guy. He appears credible and he knows how to communicate well. It's just disheartening to realize that we currently have an administration that enjoys an overwhelming popularity or political capital that seems impossible to outspend. The typical vice of being masa: being popular often means being typically mediocre or stupid. Is this masa fever spreading onto the Supreme Court that Midas Marquez starts to sound like Ricky Carandang or Edwin Lacierda? He sounds like he has to give a reason for everything even when it's unnecessary. The Supreme Court may worry about how the public accepts its decisions but it does not need to preserve a political capital. It only needs to maintain its integrity and competence in interpreting the laws of the land. Justices don't have to be popular since it's remote possibility for the public to stage a People Power Revolution Part XXX to overthrow them. There's no need to be masa for the Judiciary because the prevalent perception that justices of the SC are elites usually equates to a general perception of intelligence, competence, and non-TRAPO behavior. Only traditional politicians feel that need to explain themselves to the public and maintain a masa image to be liked and to stay in their positions of power. To cite an example: Only PNoy needs to ANNOUNCE THAT HE IS NOT TAKING HOLIDAY vacations as he intends to do more work because he needs to look good because his power comes from the people (his popularity) and that's the only thing he can use or brag about for we haven't seen him yet demonstrating COMPETENCE and real LEADERSHIP SKILLS.
The statement only affects the credibility of the SC for it fuels speculations. People might think: did the SC just opt for a win-win solution instead of properly assessing what they needed to assess? We have to remember that we send criminals to jail hoping we can still reform them or give them the time to rethink their lives and contemplate on their mistakes. It's not justice served if you release a hypothetically guilty Hubert Webb et al given the fact that they have already spent long enough a time behind bars. A criminal needs to acknowledge his mistakes, experience remorse, and learn to seek forgiveness for him to deserve to return to freedom and re-assimilate with society.
