December 2, 2011 Leave a comment
This administration clearly does not understand presumptions, and how a state must act on them.
Two weeks ago the Secretary of Justice has fully executed her watchlist order which prevented the departure of CGMA. CGMA, who was then scheduled to have a medical exam in Singapore, was prevented from boarding her DragonAir flight bound to Singapore, presuming that she would not return. During the oral arguments, the Secretary of Justice presumed that the Court’s ruling was executory pending compliance, and she was wrong.
This week, the government dismissed a death threat against the congresswoman, presuming that the threat has no basis. Secretary Abad (Budget and Management) even told the reporters that Mrs. Len Bautista-Horn, the congresswoman’s chief of staff, should see a psychiatrist.
Our constitution clearly instructs officers of the law; all those who are accused of committing a crime, whether caught in the act or otherwise, are presumed innocent unless otherwise proven by the courts. How can we trust officers of the law to safeguard this constitutional guarantee if, in this situation, the government is the main body instilling a perception of guilt to a constitutionally innocent woman.
As to the threats against the life of the president, should our security forces attempt to verify such information? Should the Secretaries of Justice and Interior and Local Government verify the veracity of these threats instead of rebuking the people who revealed it? In practice of security, should we presume threats to life real unless otherwise disproven?
How can we trust a government that does not provide us with the presumption of innocence, and presumption of imminence of threat?