Tiresome ubiquity, September 22, 2002

MANY columnists have already written about this, but I can’t help expressing my own annoyance over the way President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has been flaunting herself like a cheap attention-getter. She looks like a pop star courting public adoration and not a Head of State acting decorously on keeping with her exalted position. If she does not know it yet, somebody should inform her of the fast rising number of our citizens who are disgusted over her many tiresome acts of self-levitation.

On the front page of the Star the other Saturday, there was a picture of our President sitting on a makeshift throne as a make-believe queen of a local celebration. She was wearing a crown of what looked like glass diamonds and plastic rubies that might have been borrowed from a carnival sideshow. She was actually participating in the charade when it would have been more becoming and appropriate if she had merely sat among the audience to watch the festivities.

That picture reminded me of the various occasions when she donned tribal costumes and danced with the indigenous people, again forgetting that she was the President of the Philippines and not a native maiden looking for a spouse.

The next day, there she was again, this time on the INQUIRER, and in a more ridiculous picture. She was flanked by four of her Cabinet members, and all five of them were wearing black suits and dark glasses. If they thought they would impress the public, they had better think again because the effect was quite the opposite. The photograph was, in fact, comical because it featured our principal executive officials, including Ms. Macapagal herself, and not, as might be expected, a theatrical troupe.

Anyone unfamiliar with our reelectionist President might have thought he was looking at a clip for a movie featuring yet another superstar flexing her extraordinary powers against demonic aliens threatening planet Earth. Only the knowledgeable would have known this was only our show-off leader exploiting yet another photo opportunity to project her intrusive image.

The Cabinet members who posed with her must have felt uncomfortable over the artificiality of the picture, with all of them wearing signature glasses as if they were posing for a Ray-Ban advertisement in Playboy. Secretary Angelo Reyes probably wished he were back in the killing fields of Mindanao instead of indulging in the childish tomfoolery. Every one of them had to defer to the presidential request– or command — including my dear friend Bert Romulo. He is a most humble person who does not need dark glasses to maintain his low profile.

Realizing that the photograph has raised mixed reactions of disdain and mockery, the President’s apologists made light of her showy indiscretion. Secretary Ignacio Bunye said the President was simply taking a break from her serious duties, and Secretary Dinky Soliman merely laughed off Sen. Tessie Oreta’s suggestion that she and Secretary Gloria Tan-Climaco also pose with their President in a similar picture. Secretary Hernando Perez pretended to be sad over his non-inclusion in the Power Group, although, if I know him, he was secretly happy over his exclusion.

Last Tuesday, La Gloria was again on the front page of the Star, exhibiting the latest group of detainees captured by the military in its recent encounter with suspected kidnappers. The Top Crime Buster was there, as usual, to grace the occasion with her presence that, intentionally or not, destroyed the presumption of innocence in favor of the detainees. This was not the first time she had taken advantage of this yet another photo opportunity to practically pronounce sentence on mere suspects.

There is a bill filed by Rep. Juan Miguel Zubiri, if I remember correctly, prohibiting the military and police authorities from parading their captives as if they were already convicted felons. Their public humiliation alone prematurely adds to their punishment even if they are presumed not guilty by the Constitution itself. The detainees may look guilty, and perhaps they are. But that is not for the law enforcement officers to decide, not even for the President of the Philippines. Only the courts can do this.

La Gloria appears to take pleasure in these exhibitions because she probably believes that every detainee is a feather in her cap as evidence of her immense success in curbing criminality in this country. Her presence alone at these pretentious rituals is a signal to the trial courts to convict the accused and give the administration another plus mark. Acquitting the suspects could embarrass the President and frustrate the poor judge’s ambition to reach the Court of Appeals.

On Sept.13, our President was in Antipolo City to preside at the raid of a building suspected of containing smuggled rice. The media were there to record the event, but it was abruptly aborted when the lawmen discovered they had no search warrant. Ms. Macapagal made a hasty retreat, saying she was there only to watch the proceedings. The raid was made the next day, this time with the required warrant, and, yes indeed, La Gloria was there again.

Where does she find the time to do other work when she is not catching suspected criminals with the media cameras whirring and clicking? The people may get ghastly tired of her ubiquitous presence by 2004.

Letters from readers, September 21, 2002

A READER of this column has again asked for my legal opinion on a case he is personally pleading before the Supreme Court as a pauper litigant. He has enclosed with his letter voluminous copies of the pertinent papers, including his latest motion of reconsideration of the resolution of the Supreme Court denying his petition for certiorari against the Court of Appeals. Fidel D. Banzon, from Cebu City, also prays the Supreme Court to appoint me as amicus curiae.

Banzon had earlier sent me an even thicker letter requesting my opinion on another case that had also been denied or procedural lapses. I had also not acted upon it for the reasons I have repeatedly explained in this column. I am now retired and do not practice anymore; besides, this is not a legal advice column. When persons come to me for legal opinion or representation, I simply refer them to any one of my three lawyer-sons or suggest that they go to the Public Attorney’s Office under the Department of Justice or to the IBP. There are also private legal assistance organizations like the CLASP.

Some persons with retained counsel also write me to explain their cases and if they are being correctly handled by their lawyers. Please! This is the kind of letter I definitely do not entertain because it not only wastes my time and, worse, asks me to violate legal ethics. They expect me to interfere with, and possibly even criticize, my brother or sister lawyers.

Reacting to my article on the separation of Church and State, one reader called me an apologist for the Catholic Church for not attacking Cardinal Sin’s acceptance of a P1 million donation from Mike Arroyo. I write what I please, not what this sorehead pleases; in fact, even the INQUIRER does not dictate what I should or should not write about. I will also have him know that I am not a practicing Catholic, nor have I apologized for but on the contrary have often criticized that religious group.

I was particularly riled by that letter sent by the director of the Center for Creative Writing and Studies of a prestigious university in Manila inviting me to be a guest lecturer on “Writing in the Legal Profession.” I was disposed to accept the invitation until I read the last sentence of the letter, which sternly instructed me, as if I were one of her pupils: “Be prepared to take part in a panel discussion with members of the legal profession and the academic community as reactors.” No, ma’am, not to a Ph.D. who cannot even write a polite request.

There are letters that deserve to be answered but are not, simply because I am already retired and no longer have a staff to help me. Now I type, address and mail my letters myself, where before I only dictated them and left my secretary to take care of the rest. What I not do instead is to reply to some of such letters in this column, like the one asking me for the citations of the cases I mentioned in my article on the right to know. They are Valmonte v. Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256, and Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, 150 SCRA 530.

Roberto B. Rejano sent me a position paper on the consumer charges of the Maynilad Water Services and asks me to study if it has legal basis. I regret, dear sir, that I must decline, for the reasons I am repeating in this article. Still, I want to express admiration for your civic spirit, which is sadly wanting in many of us these days. It is not so, fortunately, in RTC Executive Judge Vicente L. Yap of Pasay City, who shared my observations on the curious report that no criminal charges have been filed against a society matron for the killing of a nurse in the suspect’s car.

The letter sent to me by my good friend, former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez, agrees that there is really a need to cleanse our courts and restore public faith in the judiciary as the ultimate defender of the rule of law. For this purpose, he has organized Operation Clean Hands “to assert and maintain the purity of the law, integrity of the legal profession and the essence of true justice.” He says he wrote to 20 law firms inviting them to join the movement, but only 10 of them have accepted; this is an indication, he observes wryly, of the others’ “complacent conformity to the corrupted state of the judiciary.”

Paul Mortel, a regular correspondent, complains that of the 15 congressmen he wrote to last May, only two replied. The others violated RA 6713, better known as the Code of Official Conduct, which requires government officials to reply to letters sent to them by the public. Mortel says he has received more courteous attention from the White House and 10 Downing Street than his own boorish legislators. Perhaps they just ignored him because he was not their constituent although they are national officials accountable to the entire electorate.

Significantly, those who replied to his letter were Rep. Alfono V. Umali from Oriental Mindoro and Rep. J. R. Nereus O. Acosta from far-off Bukidnon. Our letter-writer is from Marikina City in Metro Manila.

I express my apologies to those I have not been able to answer directly or at least through this column. I just do not have the time or the clerical help to reply to each of them, especially those conveying friendly compliments that I appreciate and cherish though undeserved. I welcome all your letters, including the critical and even abusive, because as Samuel Johnson said, “I would rather be attacked than unnoticed.”

Tactical delays, September 15, 2002

LAST week I wrote about the people’s distrust of the judiciary because of the prevalent rumors of corruption among many judges. Let me now write about another complaint against our courts that may or may not also be tainted with corruption. My subject today is the common problem of delay in the administration of justice.

Delay is the tactic of some shysters who use it to postpone an inevitable guilty verdict against their clients. One of Estrada’s former lawyers openly bragged that he could delay his client’s case by as long as five years. In fact, the former President’s trial has been unduly obstructed with scores of motions that have generally been denied for lack of merit.

The cases against the Marcoses for various offense were filed soon after EDSA I in 1986, but the majority of them remain unresolved. We are now in a new century, and the old hope of their being decided soon is simply getting older.

The P23.3 billion tax deficiency adjudged against them in 1999 has not yet been collected. Imelda’s conviction of graft by the Sandiganbayan was affirmed by the First Division of the Supreme Court but reversed by the banc in a questionable appeal. Except for these “reverses,” the Marcoses are effectively “acquitted” because of the inaction on their cases.

Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena was disciplined by the Supreme Court after it was discovered that as of October 2000, there were as many as 450 cases in the Sandiganbayan that had not yet been decided even way beyond the reglementary period. Four-fifths of these cases were assigned to the First Division, which he himself heads. Recently, his motion for more time to dispose of the rest of his cases was denied by the Court.

Even first year law students are aware of the constitutional periods for the decision of cases. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court 24 months, 12 months for the lower collegiate courts unless further reduced by the Supreme Court, and three months for the other lower courts. In the Garchitorena case, this last period was applied to the Sandiganbayan on the ground that it is a trial court.

These deadlines are declared by the Constitution as “mandatory,” but they are often exceeded, sometimes by the Supreme Court itself. Even if the last pleading has been filed, it may take its own time before declaring that the case is ready for decision. It is only from that declaration that the mandatory period begins to run.

It is bad enough that the prescribed deadlines are often ignored. The delay while the case is still in progress is no less deplorable. Some judges use all kinds of excuses to avoid the early decision of a case because they are either overloaded or simply indolent. The Supreme Court may require a comment, then a Reply, then a Rejoinder, then a Sur-rejoinder even if the additional pleadings are unnecessary.

In fairness,some courts are grossly overloaded and do not have enough time to deal with all their cases. A busy judge in Parañaque who was attending a seminar in Tacloban reset a case scheduled last Aug. 25 to Feb. 3, 2003. Still, I think the Mark Jimenez extradition case requires special prompt attention because of our treaty commitments with the United States. It has not yet been decided since it was filed by the Department of Justice on June 1, 1999, more than three years ago.

In a case before an RTC in Northern Samar, the parties received notice five and a half weeks in advance of the pre-trial. On the scheduled date, the defense counsel flew to that province with his client after submitting his pre-trial brief earlier. Thirty minutes before the pre-trial, the plaintiff’s counsel sent a motion for postponement, averring that he had other trial commitments elsewhere. The defense counsel opposed the motion and moved for the dismissal of the case, pointing out that the plaintiff was absent without explanation, his also absent counsel’s motion was filed late, and he had no pre-trial brief either.

The court ruled the motions submitted for resolution. The defense counsel and his client had to fly back to Manila after defraying considerable expenses for nothing. It was only two and a half months later that the defense counsel received notice of the denial of his motion and the rescheduling of the pre-trial “in the interest of justice.”

In rejecting procedural rules and giving undue partiality to the plaintiff, the judge has raised strong suspicions of his improbity and ignorance of the law. The case is still pending and is likely to be appealed if the defendant loses, which is almost certain. Even now, however, I am hoping, as a concerned citizen, that the Supreme Court will look into this disturbing report that has raised a prima facie case of yet another judicial anomaly.

As I stressed in this column last Sunday, the Supreme Court, as administrator of the judiciary, can initiate action instead of just passively waiting for the filing of complaints against erring judges. There are more irregularities in our courts than the 600 cases naively cited by Chief Justice Davide. The Court should motu proprio investigate rumors of judicial misconduct instead of ignoring them for the usual excuse of “lack of a proper party.” That is a weak pretext for dereliction of duty.

 

 

 

Aerial aggression, September 14, 2002

IT has become obvious that the Air Transportation Office under Adelberto Yap is not at all bothered by the serious problems of the residents of Merville and other adjacent villages in the cities of Parañaque and Las Piñas.

We have been complaining about the noise and air pollution caused by the intrusive airplanes that fly over our places of residence to the detriment of our health, convenience and right of repose. The ATO couldn’t care less.

I have written about this problem in this column many times over the years, but to no avail. We have received no relief from the successive administrations of Presidents Fidel V. Ramos, Joseph Estrada, and now Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

They have turned a deaf ear to our protests in favor of Cebu Pacific and Air Philippines, the airlines polluting our airspace and violating our human and constitutional rights. They’re the powerful companies the government listens to with servile attention.

All the authorities have given us are soothing words and promises of remedial action. Such remedy has yet to come, if at all. Meanwhile, the privileged airplanes endanger our health, disturb our repose, ignore our comfort and convenience, interrupt our conversations and depreciate our property values.

The children are especially injured, including infants roused from sleep and the students enrolled in the several schools operating in the invaded areas. Before he became a senator, Noli de Castro aired a television program featuring the complaints of residents against the arrogant airplanes. Among those who spoke were schoolchildren, adult residents, and several noise experts who warned of the adverse effects of the insolent intrusions.

All the government did was shrug its shoulders. The airlines had argued that their transfer to another airport or the installation of hush kits in their airplanes would entail much expense that would deplete their profits. That was sufficient excuse for the government to do nothing.

Through our own initiative some years ago, the ATO promised to limit the airplane flights over our community to certain hours in the daytime. But this rule was soon and often broken. The airplanes awakened us at night or early in the morning with brazen arrogance. All the ATO did was offer token apologies and nothing more.

I wrote another article against the abusive airplanes last July and two days later Sen. Loren Legarda invited me to lunch to discuss our problem with Yap. This retired general first smugly said our complain was “moot and academic” but softened when he realized I was not his enlisted man. He then promised to help us, but rather vaguely.

Senator Legarda also referred our complaint to Sen. Joker P. Arroyo, chair of the committee on public services, environment and natural resources, who called a hearing. It was attended by many resident from Merville and other affected communities. Also present was the leader of our campaign, Semito Alparce, who was ready to demonstrate his impaired hearing caused by the airplane noise.

As before, Yap promised to alleviate our problem, but Senator Arroyo asked him to specify his intended remedies. This time, the ATO chief reported several measures his office was taking for our protection, including — again — the limitation of airplane flights to certain hours in the daytime, especially on Sundays.

He cited the agreement with Air Philippines and Cebu Pacific reducing the “time window” for runway take-off from 10 a.m.-7 p.m. to 10 a.m.-3 p.m. limiting their take-offs from 11 .m.-3 p.m. Air Philippines will reduce to four take-offs (B-737) on Runway 13 within the 11 a.m.-3 p.m. time window. Six DC-9 of the Cebu Pacific will take-off on Runway 13 within the same four-hour window.

Merville residents, not to mention people from adjacent villages, can testify under oath that these agreements are not being followed or enforced. The arrogant airplanes roar over us as early as at about 5:20 in the morning when many people are still asleep and continue harassing us even after the 3 p.m. deadline. Yap knows about this but has done nothing to correct or punish the infractions.

If Yap pleads ignorance or innocence of this irregularity, he should resign his office for incompetence and bad faith. We are done with supposed public servants who serve, not the public in general, but privileged affluent companies.

I am reporting this matter directly to Senators Joker P. Arroyo, Loren Legarda, Manuel Villar, author of a bill providing for aviation noise management and reduction in residential areas, and Rep. Eduardo C. Zialcita, who has called for the investigation by his own chamber of complaints of the residents near the airport “against the noise pollution caused by the departing and arriving airplanes.”

The conflict is between the protection of the health and welfare of the residents of Merville and other affected communities and, on the other hand, the reduction of the profits of the offending airlines if the government grants our legitimate demands. The choice, if we live in a just and humane society, should be obvious.

I cannot believe that one minor office in the Department of Transportation and Communications can be as insolent with the above-mentioned members of the Congress as the arrogant airplanes it is protecting. The tremendous earnings of Air Philippines and Cebu Pacific cannot be more important that the well-being of the people they are oppressing.

Cleansing our courts, September 8, 2002

I TAKE this opportunity to reiterate my congratulations to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. for the Ramon Magsaysay Award for Government Service that he received recently. Like most of our people, I believe that, more than any of our incumbent public officials, it is the Chief Justice who deserves the distinct honor conferred on him on the basis of his outstanding record, principally as head of the judiciary.

I would also like to comment, if I may, on the speech he delivered at the award ceremonies where he dissented from the remarks made less than tactfully by a foreign diplomat. That was US Ambassador Francis Ricciardone, who spoke publicly of rampant corruption in our judiciary as a deterrent to foreign investment.

My recollection of the rules of diplomatic courtesy is that a foreign ambassador should not involve himself in the internal affairs of the host country and desist from publicly criticizing its government. Any adverse comment on the receiving State should be made privately through official channels lest it be used as political ammunition by the opposition parties.

Ricciardone, assuming his good faith, should have addressed his misgivings to our foreign secretary for transmittal to the Chief Justice. In publicly castigating the Philippine judiciary, he sounded as if we were still an American colony being scolded by Governor General Leonard Wood.

That said, let me now go to Davide’s speech where he denied that our judiciary was a den of thieves as charged by the the outspoken envoy. The Chief Justice did not claim, as indeed he could not, that our courts were completely honest. On the contrary, he admitted, there were “bad eggs” among our judges (and he might have added justices as well) but they did not outnumber their honest colleagues.

Davide stressed that of the 25,000 officials and administrative personnel in the judiciary, only 600 have been disciplined during the past three years of his incumbency as Chief Justice. Three hundred fifty-two of them were magistrates, who were sentenced to the corresponding penalties, including removal. The number of punished offenders, he said, certainly would not justify condemnation of the entire judiciary as a den of thieves.

With all due respect to the Chief Justice, I believe that his explanation is far from realistic. He should know, more than any one else, that the numbers he cited do not show the whole picture of the corruption in the judiciary. That venality is more widespread than he imagines and is closer to the truth of Ricciardone’s remarks.

Davide’s conjecture that most of the complainants against judicial misconduct are “disgruntled litigants” may be accepted but not completely. Some of them may be disgruntled precisely because of the respondent’s improbity or incompetence; many others dare not complain while their cases are pending, and it is only when they lose that they become disgruntled. And there are also those who may not be litigants at all, much less disgruntled, but are concerned and earnest complainants looking for justice.

The Supreme Court has dismissed many administrative cases for the usual excuse of “lack of evidence” but it misappreciates its role as an administrative body and not as a court of justice. As a tribunal, it can act only when its jurisdiction is invoked, but as an administrator, it does not simply await but must initiate action. This means that it should itself seek and produce the needed evidence to enforce judicial discipline if it is to truly discharge its constitutional duty to administer the judiciary.

Chief Justice Davide and some of his colleagues on the Supreme Court and other judicial tribunals enjoy the esteem and confidence of the people, but they constitute only an admirable minority. I must inform him, if he naively does not know it yet, that many of our judges, from the lowest to the highest levels, are regarded with suspicion and contempt by the disappointed and hostile public. This attitude is fanned by rumors that, true or not, have seriously impaired the people’s former faith in our courts of justice. I have to regretfully inform him that the Supreme Court is no longer considered the formidable and irreproachable bulwark of justice.

I say “former” because the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court, used to be the most respected branch of the government. The justices of the High Tribunal embodied the ideal of the fair and fearless magistrate who could, like Lord Coke of England, defy his monarch’s command with the ringing words: “I will do what becomes me as a judge.”

That precious standard established by the Arellano Court was jealously maintained through the years until it was shamelessly rejected during the Marcos dictatorship. Sadly, that lost value has yet to be fully restored today. In my humble view, this can be done through a more careful selection of the nominees of the Judicial and Bar Council, a stricter supervision of the courts by the Court Administrator, and a more assertive leadership of the Supreme Court in weeding out its misfits.

Chief Justice Davide, my friend, if you would act more aggressively on cleansing our courts of corruption, ineptitude and indolence, you will have performed the noblest achievement of your outstanding career and earned the highest accolade from our grateful nation.

Foolish mercy, September 7, 2002

I HAVE written about this before but I can’t help thinking about it again. One of the ironies of our history is the way we have forgiven the people who wrecked our lives and despoiled our future during the Marcos dictatorship. We have not only forgiven but also unctuously rewarded some of them out of the foolishness of our hearts.

The present generation may not realize the iniquities of that regime, but those who lived through it cannot forget the brazen opportunism and greed of its cynical leaders. Those scoundrels obviously thought they could ignore and forever escape the people’s muted anger over their oppression. The French aristocracy at least recognized the inevitability of the vengeful deluge, but our martial law elite thought it could misrule without end.

EDSA I eventually broke the dam that had long prevented the surge of the people’s wrath. Filipinos from all walks of life rose from their placid patience in a common cause against the defilers of their freedom. After their ordeal for more than 13 desperate years, they finally found the courage to join in an angry but peaceful revolution that toppled Marcos from his wobbly throne.

The dictator was flown out of harm’s way by the US forces although he wanted to flee to his home grounds in Ilocos Norte where he might have raised loyalist forces to defend him. Among those who rode with the Marcos family to Honolulu were Fabian Ver and Eduardo Cojuangco, who also feared for their lives from the incensed mob. Other Marcos supporters had no choice but to remain and risk — but did not suffer — the vengeance of the people.

The Freedom Constitution called for the eradication of the vestiges of the previous regime, but this turned out to be mere rhetoric. Persons identified with the Marcos dictatorship enjoyed undeserved immunity, and some were even absurdly retained in office.

Blas F. Ople, who defended Marcos in Washington while EDSA I was raging, served in the Constitutional Commission of 1986, was twice elected to the Senate, and recently assumed office as secretary of foreign affairs. Panfilo Lacson, the notorious Rolando Abadilla’s lieutenant, became the top police officer of Joseph Estrada (also a Marcos fan) and is now a senator being touted for President in 2004. Sen. Edgardo Angara, UP president as blessed by Marcos and head of the most powerful law firm then, now leads the opposition with some other steadfast followers of the despot. Even the Supreme Court was infiltrated by prominent loyalists who consistently voted in favor of their disgraced leader.

No effort was taken to secure the return of certain persons alleged to have committed various crimes during that malignant era. Benjamin Romualdez came home recently of his own volition and had a number of criminal cases against him dismissed by the Sandiganbayan. Cojuangco, who had earlier slipped back into the country, might have won the presidential election in 1992 if Imelda had not also run and split the Marcos loyalist votes.

Madame bounced back and became a member of the House of Representatives in 1995; the protest against her for lack of residence was dismissed by the Supreme Court in a dubious decision. In 1998, she was convicted of fraud by the Sandiganbayan in a decision later affirmed by the First Division of the Supreme Court. But this was conveniently reversed by the banc that, contrary to its own rules, received the appeal as an exceptional case.

Bongbong Marcos is governor of his province and Imee Marcos is now in Congress, both deriving parochial support from the local followers of their still idolized father. But their sister Irene is a different matter. A recently discovered substantial billion dollar account in her name in a foreign bank is being claimed by the government as plundered wealth secretly deposited by her sire and therefore subject to confiscation. She is laughing at the charge, but not the PCGG.

Even places named in honor of the Marcoses when they were in power have not been renamed to erase memories of their ugly misrule. We still have the Marcos Highway and Imelda Avenue plus other buildings and parks to remind us of the fallen family. That stone visage of the tyrant still blights the mountains of La Union like an unavoidable obscenity when it should have been blasted long ago after EDSA I. Meanwhile, the Marcoses’ P23.3 billion tax deficiency, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1999, has yet to be collected from them.

When Romania ousted Ceausescu and his wife in 1989, the people subjected them to swift justice for their tyranny. After a summary trial, the couple were sentenced to death and executed by musketry. In 1945, Mussolini and his paramour were killed, hanged upside down and spat upon by their irate countrymen. Their villainies were no worse than the injustices we suffered under martial law, but we have been exceptionally tolerant.

This is not to say that Marcos and his cohorts should have been punished like Ceausescu and Mussolini. We are a compassionate people and apply the rule of law even to those who have grievously injured us without compunction or remorse. These unrepentant culprits should not be foolishly forgiven if we are to maintain our self-respect as a betrayed nation. Ignoring their transgressions and even rewarding them for their sins can only make us not a kind but a stupid people.