[OPINION] Why the law moves too slowly for the powerful
After weeks of Senate hearings marked by sworn testimony, documentary evidence, and televised admissions, many Filipinos are asking a simple question: What is the Department of Justice—or the Office of the Ombudsman—waiting for?
The question is neither flippant nor impatient. It goes to the heart of public trust in the rule of law. In a word, perception.
Senate investigations are not criminal trials, but they are not idle talk either. They routinely surface facts, contracts, audit trails, and witness statements that would justify—at the very least—the prompt filing of criminal complaints where the evidence so warrants. Yet, once the cameras are turned off and the hearings adjourned, the momentum dissipates. The files appear to sink into institutional inertia.
This is especially troubling when allegations involve malversation of public funds, an offense that strikes directly at the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust.
No one is asking for shortcuts. No one is asking that constitutional rights be abridged. What the public reasonably expects is decisive, timely action consistent with existing law and procedure.
Under our legal system, the filing of a criminal complaint does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. It requires probable cause—a reasonable belief, based on evidence, that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. This standard exists precisely so that cases may proceed without paralysis at the preliminary stage.
And yet, time and again, when the respondents are politically influential, economically powerful, or electorally entrenched, probable cause seems to require the impossible.
The result is a corrosive double standard.
For the ordinary Filipino, the wheels of criminal justice turn swiftly—sometimes mercilessly. For the “big fish,” the wheels turn so slowly that the case often expires from exhaustion, distraction, or political realignment.
It bears emphasis that malversation and plunder are serious offenses, often non-bailable when the evidence is strong. The law already provides the tools: preventive suspension, hold departure orders, and judicial warrants issued upon a finding of probable cause by the courts. What is lacking is not legal authority but institutional resolve.
Delay has consequences. Evidence grows stale. Witnesses recant or disappear. Public outrage cools into resignation. Cynicism hardens. Worse, delay creates the perception—whether fair or not—that accountability is negotiable, that influence can outlast outrage, and that time itself is a defense available only to the powerful.
The Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman were not created to be passive repositories of controversy. They are constitutional and statutory guardians of accountability. Their credibility depends not on press statements, but on timely, visible action grounded in law.
If the evidence presented in Senate hearings is insufficient, the public deserves a clear explanation. If it is sufficient, then complaints should be filed without fear or favor, warrants sought where justified, and the courts allowed to do their work.
Nothing restores faith in government faster than the sight of the law being applied evenly—without regard to name, office, or political affiliation.
So, in the simplest terms, ask me, as your humble private law practitioner, what needs to be done right now about the entire flood control mess/scandal?
In the simplest terms, let me spell it out or break it down for the man in the street. This is all that the law and jurisprudence requires: preliminary investigation. How?
1. The DOJ, NBI, or OMB initiates a criminal complaint for malversation individually versus each and every respondent named in the Senate investigations as complicit in the malversation of the DPWH flood control funds, based on the sworn statements of witnesses/resource persons.
2. Assign a prosecutor to handle each complaint who will then subpoena the respondent, attaching corresponding copies of such sworn statements, requiring them to submit their counter-affidavit within a non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt, with a warning that no motion to dismiss, bill of particulars, etc., will be entertained.
3. Resolve and file within 30 days the corresponding criminal complaint with the Sandiganbayan or RTC, which will issue the corresponding warrant of arrest for the non-bailable crime.
4. Arrest the SOB and throw away the keys.
For many Filipinos, myself included, the question is no longer whether corruption exists. We know it does. The question is whether our institutions still have the will to confront it when it matters most.
Only decisive, lawful action will answer that question—and help this weary republic, and its weary citizens, move past cynicism toward something resembling hope.