MANILA, Philippines - First, the truth hurt that the Supreme Court found the Truth Commission to be unconstitutional. A few weeks later, their lawyerly sensibilities offended, the Department of Justice and Public Attorney's Office are practically blaming the SC justices for acquitting the "Vizconde Seven."
A "lying witness" and lack of evidence enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt? It's enough to send chills up and down my spine!
What would it have cost us if the cream of the crop of state lawyers had 1) said nothing; 2) said it is now up to the NBI to hunt down the two remaining suspects; 3) said the court of last resort has done its job, case closed.
The court's spokesman has explained in clear and simple language how the decision did not necessarily find the accused innocent, only that the evidence presented "was not enough to sustain a conviction."
If a more credible witness or witnesses and stronger evidence against the accused were not available after all these years, what would, what could keep them in jail? A presidential proclamation?
How many more investigations do we need? How far back into the past do we reach to dig up fresh, overlooked, forgotten or suppressed evidence; to cast the net for new witnesses; to try and try again until we find, at the end of the rainbow, the verdict we yearn for?
