Witnesses are already there. Is there any coming to testify against the sitting senator and alleged drug lord protector Leila de Lima? What makes Duterte government too slow to file an appropriate case against the Senator?
One way or another, Senator de Lima’s issue has overly sensationalized since day one. She has become the most sought-after focus until now. Some media outlets have been running news review, opinions, or commentaries insinuating the alleged issues against de Lima were but fabricated, manufactured, and desperate. No less than the senator, herself, repeatedly asserted that allegations were pure lies. Others have been trying to inflict to the public that the allegations had truth. But still, the truth is too nameless to write for an appropriate suit to file it in a court. Then, why the government seems to be satisfied trying it by publicity rather than filing a case in court?
▲ Is the government still wanting “hard knock” facts?
The justness of the law doesn’t require the hardest facts so that the case can stand. Nor does it require overwhelming publicity so the same can pass through the multicoated litmus test of veracity. Rather, the justness of the law, so it can dispense justice accordingly, needs only substantial, sufficient evidence enough to walk through the critical path of events interconnecting without a detour heading to the flesh of the case.
Well, what encourages Senator de Lima to keep on asserting the inconsistencies of the witnesses’ testimonies in regard to time and place of events that transpired, when those witnesses were so consistent to claim that she was involved in the proliferation of drugs inside Bilibid?
The technicality of law doesn’t exist to circumvent the flaws of the time and event in order to weaken the leading substance of the case. So, be the testimonies of different witnesses have shown flaws in one or two events when those events are only accessories by nature to complete the performance of the primary object of those events, the case still can stand tall and proud.
▲ Are evidence still needing “cooks and acrobatics” to appear as lean as truth?
When Senator de Lima consistently asserted the allegations as pure lies, there could be some truth behind it. Doubt exists for just no reason at all. As reason exists as the basis of doubt. Therefore, doubt is a reason where the justness of the law is founded.
Duterte government, through the Department of Justice headed by Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II, (By the way, this is the same Aguirre who was insulted of the brilliance of mind and of the ingenious oratorical style of delivery of the most admired and regarded when it comes to international law and Constitution, the late former Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, during the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona impeachment.) sometimes, went implausible in his public statement on the field where he is known and be considered well familiar with—the law. Well, nobody’s perfect, but perfection does exist…in your mind and in your expertise. Vitaliano Aguirre II, at least, has been trying to exert efforts for good.
Besides having the most advantages, the government appears too slow to try Senator de Lima in court. Doubts are running contagiously affecting the very process of digging deep down the truth of the allegations. While the government continues to delay filing a case, Senator Leila de Lima may be nearing to her success to fail the government and let the allegations die down. If this happens, then all are just stages of the bigger, yet most life-changing plan, and officials are truly pawns of the game while the public becomes the spectator.
▲ Does Duterte government lack material, direct evidence to convict Senator Leila de Lima as drug lord protector after all?
This could be true.
The witnesses’ testimony, however vibrant and colorful it is, can be weakened by a question of direct evidence that would spell out the difference between the magnitude of the testimony and the intensity of the same. Senator de Lima could feel exoneration day by day stepping in.
Although the witnesses had been successfully involving the senator to the collections of the drug money, the material and objective direct evidence that the senator really accepted and took the monies with her, so far, has not yet been elucidated and has never been given a chance to stand in the on-going House inquiry.
Will Senator de Lima be laughing out loud after all? ▲