Flight doesn't make right
There is one question I have been puzzling over during this whole GMA travel issue. Namely, how is it possible that we can conscientiously argue that it is acceptable for someone who is under investigation by the Republic of the Philippines (in any jurisdiction) to freely travel. This seems antithetical to enforcing accountability. To argue that an agency should just file cases to prevent flight overlooks the importance of filing strong and prosecutable cases that can stand on their own. The upshot is, now at least if this provisional TRO stands, is that any who are under investigation for malfeasance now have the option to just leave the jurisdiction and not return. It is a constitutional right; the right to flight.
Of course, I am not trying to absolve the Aquino administration in their continuing failure to file a single case that could prosper. However, knowing the on-going anti-corruption narrative it should not really be a surprise that they have not filed a case yet. First, we had the issues with the Ombudsman (who, let's not forget is the entity empowered to investigate and file these sorts of cases), then the junking of the 'Truth Commission' by the Supreme Court, and now these decision. Which, while it may very well adhere to the Constitution, seems to fly in the face of the pursuit of justice and accountability. Then again, if we are constantly arguing that the Constitution should be upheld and the law respected it must be respected in all of its vagaries. Yet, is it possible that our very legal framework has become an impediment in the pursuit of justice?
I would have hoped with all of various exposes throughout the last year (and the Aquino administration only took office July 2010) some case (just one) might have been filed. In some ways this reminds of the Marcos cases. The fundamental flaw behind the Marcos cases was their complete and utter mismanagement. I remember Francis Garchitorena telling me the cases were so poorly constructed and handled they were an embarrassment. The arrogance on the side of the government was palpable and there was a sense of "It's Marcos, of course we'll win." As a result we missed a golden opportunity to begin developing a sense of accountability. I wonder if in the process of avoiding another 'Marcos case' situation, the Aquino administration has indirectly added to our culture of impunity. The argument can, and should be made, that this is a situation made by the Aquino administration. If anything, that is a question that the government must address fully.
The primary criticism leveled against the Department of Justice's watch list seems to be that it infringes on the right to travel of Filipino citizens. I would turn that around and argue that when there is an on-going investigation into the actions of a citizen, they lose some rights. Quite frankly, a lawful investigation (not persecution) presupposes that there must be an investigation (for whatever reason).
If the argument is that the right to travel is an inalienable human right (sans a filed case of course)I find the conditions put in place by the Supreme Court to be curious at best. How is applying preconditions to travel not an infringement of that right as well? While the watchlist bans foreign travel, the SC preconditions are also essentially travel restrictions. Conditions like two million pesos, or appointing legal representation (though I doubt, through them, the SC can compel GMA to return), or requiring the traveler to check in at Philippine embassies will offer little difficulty for GMA, they would be prohibitive for other travelers. If the goal by the SC was to 'restrict' the movements of GMA (or at least keep tabs), then these preconditions seem naive at best.
I still remain confused by the shifting nature of GMA's travel plans. What specialists is she seeing? What are these special procedures? Why is there a difference between the proclamations of her doctors and her lawyers? Why so many countries? Keeping that in mind, I keep coming back to my original point: When did the flight from lawful investigation become a human right?
