One legal term that has been thrust recently into the media vocabulary is “obstruction of justice.” The term came out after the “kidnapping” of Jun Lozada, a witness in the senate investigation on the NBN-ZTE deal, and the subsequent admission by the Philippine National Police that he was in their custody.
Later, after Lozada had given his testimony in the Senate regarding the alleged irregularities in the ZTE deal, Sen. Jamby Madrigal filed an obstruction of justice complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against President Gloria Arroyo, and thirteen (13) other government officials including Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, former socio-economic planning secretary Romulo Neri, former environment secretary Michael Defensor, Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Avelino Razon, and environment Secretary Lito Atienza. The basis of the complaint is the alleged conspiracy of respondent officials to stop Lozada from testifying in the Senate.
Assuming that certain public officials conspired to stop Lozada from testifying, I doubt that obstruction of justice was committed by them. Obstruction of justice is an offense defined under Presidential Decree 1829. It is committed, according to the said PD, by any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates, or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases.
Based on the wording of PD 1829, I think it is quite clear that obstruction of justice can only be committed in relation to criminal cases and not to other kinds of proceedings. The senate hearing, to which Lozada was prevented from attending, is not a criminal investigation but an investigation in aid of legislation.
Perhaps the offense applicable to the public officials who prevented Lozada from attending the senate hearing is disobedience to summons under Article 150 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). This provision punishes two classes of persons: (1) the person disobeying without legal cause the summon duly issued to him by the Congress (National Assembly), the Constitutional Commissions and their respective committees, sub-committees and divisions, and (2) any person who shall restrain another from attending as a witness or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.
The public officials who tried to stop Lozada from testifying in the senate, first by inducing him to go to Hong Kong and second by “kidnapping” him in NAIA, may well fall under the second class of persons punished under Article 150 of the RPC. I realize that obstruction of justice carries a heavier penalty than that of disobedience to summons. Perhaps, the penalty imposed under Article 150 is one area that may be legislated on based on the on-going investigation on the NBN-ZTE deal.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Finding the Right Term: Was Jun Lozada Kidnapped or Abducted?
In the media, the disappearance of Jun Lozada is often called "kidnapping" or "abduction." Some lawyer-senators have also pointed out that the people responsible for Lozada’s disappearance might have committed obstruction of justice, coercion, or forcible abduction.1
As a follower of the law, I’m interested about the exact legal term that applies to a particular situation. Words which to a layman may mean the same can have different significance in law. When I learned that Lozada was “kidnapped,” I consulted the Revised Penal Code (RPC) to see if he was really kidnapped, i.e., whether the elements which constitute kidnapping under the law are present in the case of Lozada’s disappearance. I did the same for some of the other afore-mentioned terms.
Here is what I found: Kidnapping is punished under Article 267 of the RPC and is committed by any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty. Note that the crime is committed by any private individual. So, assuming that Lozada was indeed detained or deprived of his liberty from the time of his arrival at NAIA to his conveyance in La Salle, it would appear that he was never kidnapped since the persons responsible for his disappearance were all public officials.
It is interesting to know that the RPC considers kidnapping a crime against liberty, and abduction, as punished under Articles 342 and 343 of the RPC, a crime against chastity. Article 342, which refers to forcible abduction, punishes the abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd designs. On the other hand, Article 343, which refers to consented abduction, punishes the abduction of a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age, carried out with her consent and with lewd designs. With these legal definitions, Lozada was certainly never abducted.
If Lozada was neither kidnapped nor abducted, then how do we call his disappearance? From a legal standpoint, I believe that Lozada's disappearance through the hands of public officials is "arbitrary detention," an offense punished under Article 124 of the RPC. Arbitrary detention is very much like kidnapping or illegal detention except that it is committed by public officials or employees.
Next: On Obstruction of Justice
1 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=117102
As a follower of the law, I’m interested about the exact legal term that applies to a particular situation. Words which to a layman may mean the same can have different significance in law. When I learned that Lozada was “kidnapped,” I consulted the Revised Penal Code (RPC) to see if he was really kidnapped, i.e., whether the elements which constitute kidnapping under the law are present in the case of Lozada’s disappearance. I did the same for some of the other afore-mentioned terms.
Here is what I found: Kidnapping is punished under Article 267 of the RPC and is committed by any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty. Note that the crime is committed by any private individual. So, assuming that Lozada was indeed detained or deprived of his liberty from the time of his arrival at NAIA to his conveyance in La Salle, it would appear that he was never kidnapped since the persons responsible for his disappearance were all public officials.
It is interesting to know that the RPC considers kidnapping a crime against liberty, and abduction, as punished under Articles 342 and 343 of the RPC, a crime against chastity. Article 342, which refers to forcible abduction, punishes the abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd designs. On the other hand, Article 343, which refers to consented abduction, punishes the abduction of a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age, carried out with her consent and with lewd designs. With these legal definitions, Lozada was certainly never abducted.
If Lozada was neither kidnapped nor abducted, then how do we call his disappearance? From a legal standpoint, I believe that Lozada's disappearance through the hands of public officials is "arbitrary detention," an offense punished under Article 124 of the RPC. Arbitrary detention is very much like kidnapping or illegal detention except that it is committed by public officials or employees.
Next: On Obstruction of Justice
1 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=117102
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Not Doing Enough to Fight Corruption
I have just read news reports in inquirer.net and abs-cbnnews.com, both posted 23 February 2008, that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo admitted Saturday she was aware of allegations of high-level corruption in the National Broadband Network project, and that she addressed the "anomalies” in the NBN-ZTE deal by canceling it.
The reports quoted her as saying: "The people are angry about corruption. So am I. That is why as soon as there was talk about corruption in this I project, I took steps to cancel it."
I don't know if GMA is trying to act like a retard for canceling the contract but not prosecuting the criminals; or she thinks Filipinos are retards who will buy her story that she is doing something to fight corruption.
Canceling an anomalous contract is not enough to address the corruption that taints it. If bribe money already changed hands, then a crime has already been committed regardless of whether or not the contract is perfected. Worse, the criminals remain free, and free again to try their luck in securing another anomalous government contract.
If GMA is sincere in her avowed stance against corruption, then she should have ordered the investigation and prosecution of persons responsible for the anomalies in the NBN-ZTE contract. But seeing how government officials and her political allies are zealously trying to stop the on-going senate investigation on the ZTE deal, and the threat of the DOJ to file criminal cases against potential state witnesses Jun Lozada and former NEDA Sec. Neri, it is apparent that GMA is really bent on covering up the irregularities, and thus protect the criminals, in the NBN-ZTE deal.
The reports quoted her as saying: "The people are angry about corruption. So am I. That is why as soon as there was talk about corruption in this I project, I took steps to cancel it."
I don't know if GMA is trying to act like a retard for canceling the contract but not prosecuting the criminals; or she thinks Filipinos are retards who will buy her story that she is doing something to fight corruption.
Canceling an anomalous contract is not enough to address the corruption that taints it. If bribe money already changed hands, then a crime has already been committed regardless of whether or not the contract is perfected. Worse, the criminals remain free, and free again to try their luck in securing another anomalous government contract.
If GMA is sincere in her avowed stance against corruption, then she should have ordered the investigation and prosecution of persons responsible for the anomalies in the NBN-ZTE contract. But seeing how government officials and her political allies are zealously trying to stop the on-going senate investigation on the ZTE deal, and the threat of the DOJ to file criminal cases against potential state witnesses Jun Lozada and former NEDA Sec. Neri, it is apparent that GMA is really bent on covering up the irregularities, and thus protect the criminals, in the NBN-ZTE deal.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)