Where’s Your Proof?
What do I think of Jun Lozada? I think here was one man sucked into a vortex of events too powerful to escape from. It seems “heroism” is one you cannot choose; the event chooses you, as in suck you into it, if you fit the moral purpose of that event. Lozada himself seems reluctant to be one for he has own sins haunting him as well, no moral ascendancy to speak of. It was more about survival. He weighed his chances in. Having had a preview of things yet to come, right when his name began cropping up up to his bungled “rescue” at the airport, he saw his fortunes are in better hands with the Senate. Heck, life is in danger any which way you go, might as well be a hero.
A confluence of events beyond the control and mice and men? More like the impending collapse of a structure not properly built, beautifully painted walls made of plywood nailed on rotting woods, without firm foundation, just a semblance of a magnificent house from afar. Or a deck of cards collapsing on a wind blowing. Such is the nature of fraud and every fraudulent system.
I have re-learned along the way, as I followed the unfolding events, that the noble counsel obligating proof before pronouncing guilt of one is as much an advisory how to commit a crime– leave no proof behind! Watch and listen how lately these phrases have again been resurfacing: where’s the proof? is there any that could stand in a court of law? could it prove a crime beyond reasonable doubt? what sort of man is the witness? Noble thoughts. Valid concerns. For indeed, there could be no worse injustice as accusing and convicting an innocent man of a crime. Slow down. Look at the pieces of evidence with an impartial mind and eyes if they point to the guilt of the accused without question before you send him to prison. But sometimes you wonder whether the motivations are well placed or not. What’s on the mind? It is one thing to have genuine concern for an innocent man being convicted of a crime he didn’t do; it is another to cheer a criminal mind’s ingenuity and jeer at the victim’s lack of foresight. I do not know where the blame should go, if it should be the law or our own human nature. Have we given up for good our natural instincts to discern our environment and supplanted them with knowledge that neither explain nor propose? If my own personal light be any guide, when something is wrong somewhere, or something’s right, an inner ‘voice’ tells you so. You feel it so because it strikes an agreeable chord, else, a discomfiting one. Don’t we anymore see hints when a man is guilty or not, hostile or friendly? As humans we are yet all biological creatures fitted with natural sensing power as a means of survival in this world. We ignore them at our peril. If you so come face to face with an innocent man, there are telltale signs you could not disregard. So with the guilty ones. Certain things in the universe are by their nature so manifest, so obvious, so distinct, and so glaring so that insistence of imperceptibility or doubt or vagueness could only be explained by insanity, blindness– or malice. I wave here a red hankie, ask you it’s color, you insist you see blue– you must be color blind. I show you a blue book, ask you what it it, you insist it’s a black crow I am holding– you must have some kind of disorder somewhere. If you should come to me looking for a job, I’d refer you instead to a doctor. Should I come to know you hold sway over a powerful office, I should seek cover very quickly: here’s a mad man with a fully loaded Uzi on his hands!
But where did we ever get the idea that social disputes could only be resolved in a court of law? When the courts fail to satisfy the natural yearning for justice and fairness, disputes find their settlement elsewhere. I find it presumptuous of the law profession to insist that only judges of the court of law could render justice to a question of conflict. The courts are institutions whose functions were once in the hand of one man in more primitive times. Then as now, when the administration of justice fails, quarrels explode, disorder ensues. You wonder why one side would insist on other venues, look where the failure lies if not that the courts do not inspire confidence justice would be served.
Which calls attention to one thing: why does it leave you cold when administration allies insist that the investigation be wrapped up now and submitted to the courts for resolution. You wonder, what’s the motivation? Well, it is one thing to wish a just resolution to a long-pestering conflict with dispatch in the hands of a trustworthy institution; it is quite another to wish for an arena where the decision makers could be manipulated to one’s favor.
As for me, once in a while, I take my cue from my own inner counsel…