Insights (3)

The influx of imported sugar will flood the market and the price naturally will stabilize and cut into the profits of the producers.

In what appears to be a reversal of the administration policy to limit the importation of sugar to 150,000 metric tons of sugar and validation of the correctness of the controversial SO4 issued by the Department of Agriculture Undersecretary Leocadio Sebastian and the erstwhile members of the Sugar Regulatory Administration, who were forced to resign following the sugar fiasco, the President ordered to fast-track the importation of 64,050 metric tons of refined sugar to stabilize the price of sugar which continues to spike despite the peak harvest season of sugar cane.

It will be recalled that SO4 was branded as unlawful by the former Press Secretary and the then Executive Secretary, who both fell from grace and power as a consequence of the sugar importation controversy, among other irregular and questionable moves.

Likewise, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, with haste and contrary to the facts and the applicable law, shamelessly adopted the wrongful claim of the illegality of the issuance of SO4 and even incredulously recommended the filing of administrative and criminal charges against Undersecretary Sebastian and three members of the SRA.

With the President's order to import an additional 64,050 metric tons of sugar, it is becoming clearer now that the contemplated importation of 300,000 metric tons of sugar is correct after all. Justice demands that those who have been thrown to the wolves and made scapegoats be given justice. Rectification of the injustice committed against Sebastian, and the previous SRA members Serafica, Beltran and Valderama, is in order.

The sugar producers are against the importation of sugar. They are saying the sugar produce is enough to supply the demand for it. Of course, the present prevailing high price of sugar per kilogram favors them. The influx of imported sugar will flood the market and the price naturally will stabilize and cut into the profits of the producers. It will not surprise this columnist if there will be other forthcoming sugar importations.

The Secretary of Justice, unfortunately, and tragically, appears not to have shielded his department from suspicion of partiality vis-a-vis the case of former Bureau of Corrections chief General Gerald Bantag and former deputy security officer Ricardo Zulueta. Adopting the findings of police investigators in the double murder case of a radio commentator and a national penitentiary inmate, he forthwith made public statements on several occasions tagging the two as the brains behind the heinous crimes. Naturally, the Bantag and Zulueta lawyers would take exception to the premature pronouncement of guilt of their clients as evidence of bias and partiality.

As expected, the counsel of Bantag filed a motion to inhibit the panel of prosecutors created by the SoJ to conduct the preliminary investigation on the two to determine the existence of probable cause, a condition precedent to filing formal criminal information against the two in the appropriate regional trial court. Zulueta's lawyer adopted the legal position of Bantag and announced that they are also asking the DoJ prosecutors to inhibit themselves from conducting the preliminary investigation. They cited two grounds – lack of jurisdiction and evident prejudice against their clients. Both grounds have legal and jurisprudential bases.

The lawyers of respondents Bantag and Zulueta want another independent investigating body, the office of the Ombudsman, to take away the jurisdiction from the Department of Justice.

The Constitution is explicit on the power of the Ombudsman. It directs the Ombudsman to conduct an investigation either upon his initiative or upon complaint of any person, on any public official whose act or omission appears to be illegal, irregular, improper, or inefficient.

In the case of Gregory Ong vs. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court has ruled that the power of the Ombudsman in the matter of investigating public officials is broad enough to empower it to assume jurisdiction or to take over jurisdiction over complaints against public officials notwithstanding a law granting it primary jurisdiction over criminal cases exclusively heard by the Sandiganbayan.

Moreover, the plaint that the DoJ has already prejudged the case on the existence of probable cause with respect to the said respondents rests on a solid foundation owing to certain official statements coming from its head and spokesperson that the evidence point to them (Bantag and Zulueta) as the masterminds of the double murder case. And even if the panel of investigators is yet to resolve the motion for inhibition, the SoJ has already thumbed it down when he was asked for his reaction on its filing. Worse, the DoJ spokesman followed suit by making a statement that the DoJ has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation when presently there is yet no resolution on the motion for inhibition. There is not even a pretence of impartiality. The impunity is so transparent.

The DoJ cannot continue with the preliminary investigation without its resolution finding probable cause on the two respondents not being tainted with suspicion of bias and partiality. The DoJ, while its primary task is to prosecute those who violate the law, it cannot, however, do so by trampling the rights of those it is obligated to prosecute. It must remember its duty is not only to prosecute but to give every citizen justice. That's the very rationale why the Lady of Justice's eyes are blindfolded.

Those in the DoJ slam Bantag and Zulueta for using the media to express their innocence, but it is they who started the use of mass media by picturing the two as guilty as hell in committing the crimes charged them. It takes two to tango. The DoJ cannot claim exclusive use of that forum to influence the public into believing that Bantag and Zulueta are guilty. The two have the equal right to use the same medium to counter their propaganda. As the saying goes: "What is good for the goose is good for the gander."

What will DoJ lose if it inhibits itself from conducting the questioned preliminary investigation? If it does, it will restore its impaired impartiality.