Everybody
knows Chel Diokno is no fan of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte.
Part of
the Liberal Party led senatorial coalition “Otso Derecho”, he is part of the
historic political shut out of an opposition slate in a national election.
Despite
his political setback, he does not want to be out of the spotlight, still
wanting to be at the consciousness of the Filipino (maybe for another run at
the national elections in 2022) he wants to dent the image of the President
through a case they filed in the Supreme Court.
 |
| (photo credit to Daily Tribune) |
But just
like all the propaganda that has the intention to destroy the Duterte
administration, there action backfired, right before their faces.
Daily
Tribune’s commentary by Concept new Central dated July 28, 2019 titled “Diokno,
deceit and disbarment” gives us a wholistic and a new point of view as to what
was really the intent by these so called “human rights lawyers”
In the interest
of our readers and for the information of the public we are quoting in full the
said article below:
Diokno,
deceit and disbarment
Given
the brand equity that senatorial candidate Jose Manuel Diokno brought to the
table in his failed bid to bring to the Senate minority principled and
intelligent opposition, we are deeply concerned by the challenges to his
credibility in connection with the unsigned, disowned and disavowed Writ of
Kalikasan filed against state agencies allegedly on behalf of small fishermen
concerned about the environment.
Among
the opposition’s senatorial slate, Diokno was the most credible and well-intentioned.
He was also the most competent. While he lost, he provided hope for a
prospective political landscape shorn of it given a proliferation of
incompetents from his side of the aisle.
The
ploy to worm into the fishermen’s domestic and localized concerns a grand and
global issue that brings into the calculus geopolitical debates as well as
deeply technical questions on striking an intricate balance between exploiting
natural resources and sovereign capital against preserving these has been
foisted on fishermen and is central to the controversy now threatening Diokno’s
otherwise pristine reputation.
Diokno
is being accused of misrepresentation, manipulation and deception. The specific
charge he faces is covered by Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. “A
member of the Bar may be removed or suspended from his office by the Supreme
Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office or
for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party in a case without
authority to do so.”
Diokno
claims his clients — both those who did not sign the petition and those who’ve
eventually and effectively discharged him as their counsel — were allegedly
tampered with in violation of legal ethics.
To
his misfortune, where such intervention is construed positively as necessary
acts to educate not only on the details of allegations but also on effective
respondents and the eventual geopolitical impact of invoking a Writ of
Kalikasan, then Diokno may indeed be in trouble.
Where
Diokno claims his clients were approached unethically, the narrative says
otherwise. Already discomforted, it is his supposed clients who sought out
assistance. According to the Solicitor General, the petitioners approached the
legal officer of the Naval Forces in West Palawan because “they were distressed
that they filed a case against the government” which may have not been their
intent.
The
tables have not only been turned; they’ve been overturned. The violation of
legal ethics Diokno charges might find more applicable foundations when charged
against him.
Who
deceived and who were deceived? “Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the
slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of
troubles, and by opposing, end them.” Hamlet’s soliloquy and introspection
against a sea of troubles are uncannily apt for the fishermen conceptually
taking arms against both their own fortunes and the Philippine state they are
part of.
This
is important where the legal naïveté of innocents is employed to prosecute a
political agenda. For instance, did the fishermen know it was the government
that was to be accused of criminal irresponsibility or were they simply seeking
redress from poachers without bringing into question such variables as the 2016
arbitral ruling, the complexity of economic zone rights versus those under
constitutionally delineated territory?
The
petition assumes a thoroughly studied reading of the 2016 arbitral ruling, a
fine discernment between economic zones and Philippine territory, and expertise
on the technical nature of the distinctively Filipino Writ of Kalikasan.
Without
judging on the issues, to these questions levied on the petitioners, their
initiative to subsequently seek assistance from authorities other than their
claimed counsel who might pry them off a predicament they might have
unknowingly entered, these, with their eventual disavowal most eloquently
answer the question.
In
Hamlet’s introspection, the question was existential. The same should be
compelling where the threat of suspension or disbarment looms ominously over
Diokno because of the larger issue of protecting the judicial system.
A
disbarred lawyer is not a criminal. Short of prosecuting for criminality,
disbarment is a defensive administrative mechanism requiring a mere preponderance
of evidence to protect the judicial system and the public from the misconduct
of officers of the court.
Share us your thoughts by simply
leaving on the comment section below. For more news updates, feel free to visit
our site often.
Stay updated with today's relevant
news and trends by hitting the LIKE button.
Thanks for dropping by and reading
this post.
Report from Daily Tribune
0 Comments