In her memory, Cecilia

In her memory, Cecilia

The last thing I would do is to desecrate the memory of a brilliant, brave and staunch defender of the Constitution like the late Associate Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma.

But her niece, Cecilia Muñoz Delis, thinks I am dragging her family into the alleged bribery. You are wrong, Cecilia. I am not. On the contrary, like I said, you should tell the Supreme Court en banc all you know about the bribery to protect her unsoiled name. And yours too, even if I do not know you personally.

You said in your letter to me of Sept. 21 that you did not have anything to do with what might have happened. Then, please so tell the Court if you are asked.

In the letter, you declared: “I vehemently deny that I received for my boss—a lady justice you say—a box, let alone five boxes which I inadvertently discovered to contain P10 million.”

In the same letter you told me that the “only truth you can get from me is that the attempted bribery never occurred while I was employed as Judicial Staff of the PET.

May I ask you then, if you know or think that there might have been bribery before or after you voluntarily resigned?

Incidentally, do you make a distinction between termination and resignation? I ask the question because you declared in your letter that “the fact that you corrected your information … regarding the date of my termination of my employment does not cure the defect in your time line.”

My question: Did you voluntarily resign on March 15, 2007 or were your services terminated?

The affidavit

It surprises me no end that in your sworn statement you declared “I am executing this affidavit to allow Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago to defend her honor before she is actually named in the articles of Mr. Macasaet that have been appearing daily at the Malaya newspaper since Sept. 19, 2007.”

Your affidavit admits of two things. That the lady justice I have been writing about is Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago. That statement is a conclusion you made yourself.

I never mentioned the name of the lady justice.

Your statement “before she is actually mentioned in the articles of Mr. Macasaet” is another conclusion that I will divulge the identity of the lady justice. It was you who identified her. Not me. How did you know I might?

In the sworn statement, you said you are executing the affidavit to allow Justice Consuelo Ynares to defend herself. In this sense I am grateful to you for obliging me in asking you to divulge the truth.

As Voltaire said in some many words, I may not agree with what you are saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Tabloid journalism

You charged in your letter that I am in tabloid journalism. That is opinion, not fact. But you are entitled to say it.

I must tell everyone that my instinct tells me that I might help serve the ends of justice if the Supreme Court can find it necessary to conduct an investigation to get at the truth.

I have no other intention.

I do not have one word about how good or bad I have been as a journalist. That’s for the likes of you to say.

I have always maintained that I will never extol my virtues. Maybe I have none.

I have no quarrel with anybody, not even the lady justice.

I said you were fired. You said you voluntarily resigned. Can I have a copy of that resignation letter?

The spokesman of the Court said your services were terminated by the lady justice. (I will not repeat the spokesman’s statement that she was “terminated.” Cecilia is alive and obviously well).

My hope as I said in my previous piece is the court will produce the two contradictory letters. One in which you say you “voluntarily resigned” and the other showing you were dismissed by your boss. If my request does not serve the ends of justice, then I have proven to myself that, indeed, there is no justice in this country.

Not Cecilia’s job

In her letter of Sept. 21, Cecilia Munoz Diaz explained that “(third) as a matter of procedure, I would not have been tasked to receive those boxes, our male utility personnel would have been assigned to do that.”

The matter of who picked up the boxes is not as important as the delivery of the boxes.

It is my assumption, knowing how tightly the premises of the Supreme Court are secured, that all deliveries to the Supreme Court and its magistrates are recorded or logged by the security guard on duty.

Might we now ask the Security Department of the Court to produce the logbook which, as a matter of security, should have recorded the receipt of boxes—all five of them—on different occasions, according to my source.

In whose name were the boxes given? The logbook should also show who sent them.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: