This week’s movie review

whistler44.jpg

 

James Abbott McNeill Whistler. Harmony in Blue and Gold: The Peacock Room. 1876-77. Oil and gold leather and wood. Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, USA. Right-clicked from http://www.abcgallery.com

A sheriff’s job is never easy. Years ago, a client frantically asked me to rush to them, I put up excuses, said my job was over the case was over the writ was already in their possession. (As a rule, it’s not a lawyer’s job to accompany the sheriff. Some do. Anyway.) They ordered me to drop everything. The sheriff and his personnel did not want to make a move to enforce a writ on illegal occupants of an apartment, because objects like kaldero (pots and pans) and the dish rack were being thrown at the sheriff, and the occupants were using a baby as shield. I thought: How would a lawyer standing there change the trajectory of the flying objects? Anyway, I went. It wasn’t pretty. It was like a Lino Brocka film: rough, edgy, heart-wrenching, jarring. It was real, harsh, and dark; not like a movie. I hated that part of the job and lost sleep on it.

Yesterday’s service of the writ in People vs. Estrada was cinematic. Let me congratulate the media bureau of the judgment- obligor in People vs. Estrada. The job of Sandiganbayan Sheriff Urieta here was just to serve the writ of execution. That job was done when the judgment- obligor signed the file copy or “receiving copy”. That was it. Mission for that day accomplished. (For reference, see Rule 13 of the Rules of Court on service of court orders).

But here, it wasn’t just that.

A sheriff’s job is never easy. There’s an old Clint Eastwood movie where he played a sheriff whose job was to bring a witness to court, so he went out of town and fetched the witness; on the way back he was waylaid, shot at, bombed, by those who didn’t want the witness to testify, so he and the witness commandeered a bus, fortified it with improvised steel plates from cans, etc, and it was riddled with bullets and all the tires blew up and the glass shattered and the bus rattled and sputtered with many bullet holes until it was a heap and that’s how it landed at the steps of the courthouse and he made a return-of service before the judge with the witness in tow. Only Clint Eastwood.

A sheriff’s job is never easy. Yesterday, before the judgment- obligor signed the copy, a few frames earlier than that scene, the judgment-obligor had lines. “Ang akin ay akin, hindi nyo pwedeng kunin…” (“what’s mine is mine, you cannot attach them.”). Then, several more lines after that, he had more: “Anong gagawin nyo kung di nyo makuha yan? ako ang kukunin nyo?” (soft laughter) (“what will you do if you cannot attach those? You will attach me?).

To which, Sheriff Urieta reparteed: “ay naku hindi ho, hindi na namin kayo kukunin.” (soft laughter). “oh my, no. we’re not going to attach you anymore.”

(Ginawang chattel).

And there in the soft daylight, they exchanged lines. The audio was crisp, very clear, it was almost like they were wearing lapel mikes, no ambient noise. The dozens of photographers and reporters who had been waiting were quiet and well-behaved, almost hushed, during the throwing of lines The location was wide and spacious, the lighting was not too bright, without any glare, it didn’t even bounce any reflection from Erap’s eyeglasses, it was perfect; the cinematography was excellent: In one version, the cameraman slowly panned from Estrada to the left then slowly zoomed out, for detail on surroundings, like a Marilou Diaz-Abaya film, while in another, the cameraman zoomed in for drama then tight shots of objects and hands, like a Scorcese film. Production design was unobstrusive, all the characters and bystanders wore neutral colors, almost monochromatic. The only thing missing was a crane, for aerial shots; we forgot that one, didn’t we. For our establishing shots. Next time.

I had been slow to catch on. All this time, after six years, now I get it:

People vs. Estrada was a movie.

Ramblings on on a holiday: note to the future

turner13.jpg (William Turner. Regulus. 1828-1837. Oil on canvas. Tate Gallery, London, UK. Right-clicked from www.abcgallery.com)

 

She could have used anything as bargaining chip.

 

 

She could have mortgaged their 2010 and gave I.O.U.’s on the vice-presidential and presidential slots; promised government machinery support.

 

 

She could have brought loads of money. She could have accommodated them in the Comelec posts, thrown in juicy Cabinet posts;maybe even the Speakership if that was still up.

 

 

But she traded the one true possibly valuable legacy of her mandate-less rule, and that is, the integrity of judicial processes. Of course, not having a real mandate, or at best having a questionable one, she is the last to care about integrity of the judicial processes. It’s not true that she agonized over the grant of pardon. She didn’t even read what she signed; the terms of the pardon are not couched in the language of the Revised Penal Code provisions on pardon. Of course, legal positivism being the dominant school of thought (more rhetorically called “rule of law”; a phrase i try not to use, if you have the numbers, it’s legal; i invoke specific laws and rules being violated), it was within her power to grant pardon even if this had been unprecedented in haste (six weeks) and unusual in manner (negotiations started two years ago and became more open weeks before judgment became final). And “grant of pardon” being written in the Constitution as part of her powers, you would not be able to legally challenge it unless you are prepared to say that all her acts and backroom deals have undermined and subverted the integrity of the judicial processes (anyone up for that kind of confrontation in the Supreme Court?)

 

 

Of course, the prosecution should be happy. They won the case; caught the biggest fish of that time and successfully prosecuted and convicted him. Their work is done, the case folders bundled and tied up.

 

 

It’s just that…

 

 

It’s just that, maybe, ten years from now, we’d turn a street corner, somewhere, and a Filipino would ask , weren’t you part of that thing….what was that… yeah, what was that all about? I mean, what went on in there? Why is he back in power? Why are the heirs of the convicted plunderer back in Malacañang? Why didn’t the country turn a new leaf? When we closed that chapter. Weren’t you part of that…what was that….

 

 

And we’d say, we were just the lawyers there , it wasn’t up to us.

 

 

Because by then, if that happened, we’d be flicking soft leather beige gloves handling immigration cases in some temperate country. Jim Paredes and ten million Filipinos who left earlier had been correct after all, all this time, about this country. Those who stayed turned out to be the biggest dunces of all time; slow to catch on. (Or is a convicted plunderer back in power, any worse than an unindicted plunderer still in power.)

 

 

Or an alternative future.

 

 

Yes, we were part of that. That thing. We removed her from office. She paid for it. She didn’t bother to go through the impeachment trial in the Senate, she resigned after we got 80 signatures in the House. It went well. As it turned out, she had a rest house in Pampanga. We only had to build walls five feet high. No, not us anymore, our former students handled the criminal prosecution of her case. They were better. We were overwrought with pride watching them. Now, nobody wants to be President anymore, only the ex-nuns and ex-priests can afford the sacrifice. The future is always better when you turn a new leaf.

 

 

And we’d still be in a tropical country. You think.

 

 

Choose your future.