The right to strike, February 12, 1995

THE public school teachers who were dismissed by Education Secretary Isidro Cariño in 1990 are still pleading their case before the Supreme Court. The light at the end of the tunnel is not yet in sight for them.

The case stemmed from the mass protest staged by 800 Manila public school teachers on Sept. 14, 1990 against government inaction on their various complaints. They were dismissed when they refused to return to work within 24 hours. They then went to the Supreme Court, where they lost by a 10-5 vote. Through then Associate Justice Andres R. Narvasa, they were told they should first exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief.

Many of the petitioners complied. In their present petitions challenging the affirmance by the Civil Service Commission of their dismissals, they continue to invoke due process, the right of association, and freedom of expression. I think they should also specifically assert their right to strike.

While still a member of the Supreme Court, I repeatedly suggested that we reexamine the doctrine that government workers are not allowed to strike, unlike their counterparts in the private sector. This doctrine was announced in the case of SSS Employees Association v. Court of Appeals and applied without elaboration in the teachers’ case.

The SSS case was decided only by the Second Division. While it is theoretically considered a decision of the full Court, it does not necessarily represent the thinking of a majority of its members. Its application in the teachers’ case does not mean it was categorically affirmed by the banc because the teachers’ right to strike was not the issue in that case. The resolution simply assumed that the teachers did not have the right to strike as government workers and so acted improperly when they went on what they called a “mass leave.”

There is nothing in the Constitution expressly or even impliedly prohibiting government workers from going on strike. Both government and private workers are expressly guaranteed the right of association by the Bill of Rights, but only private workers are allowed by law to strike.

Article XIII specifically guarantees “all workers” the right to “peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.” But government workers are prevented by law from going on strike.

I submit that government workers have as much right as any other person in the land to speak out to seek redress of their grievances. The fact that they belong to the civil service has not deprived them one whit of their freedom of expression. It is ridiculous to even suggest that they have forfeited this basic liberty by simply accepting public employment.

The strike is a form of expression. It is an economic weapon for the protection of the worker, whether he comes from the public or private sector. To recognize it in private workers and withhold it from government workers is to deny the latter the equal protection of the laws. There is no substantial distinction between the workers to justify their unequal treatment.

It is no argument to say that compared to the private worker, the government worker performs vital functions that cannot be disrupted without serious detriment to the public welfare. That is not even accurate. The functions of a private hospital, for example, are no less urgent than those of a government hospital. The lives of the patients in both hospitals are equally valuable.

The reason for the discrimination is the erroneous basis of distinction between the two kinds of workers. The basis is the nature, not of their functions, but of their employment.

In any event, the strike need not paralyze the entity, whether it be public or private, for there is the return-to-work order that may be issued when the public interest is endangered. Such an order was in fact issued to the “protesting” teachers.

If the Supreme Court decides to affirm their dismissal, the reason should be their disobedience to that order and not because they took a “mass leave” to dramatize their protest. The Court should not consider the strike they held punishable per se for it was a legitimate exercise of their freedom of expression.

The quality of education would deteriorate in an atmosphere of repression, when the very teachers who are supposed to give their pupils an example of courage and assertiveness can only speak in timorous whispers against the outrage of their rights. The classroom should be an incubator of freedom, not fear.

Coddling Estrada, December 28, 2002

PREPOSTEROUS. Unconstitutional. A squandering of the people’s money. Another foolish coddling of the ousted leader.

That’s how I would describe the recent indulgence of Joseph Estrada, who was allowed to go to the Mother Ignacia Healing Center in Caloocan City last week for what he believed would be a miracle cure for his arthritis and “wounded spirit.”

I do not question his belief in the efficacy of the treatment he received at the center, where thousands of others have placed their faith for the alleviation of their ailments. That is their business in which we have no right to interfere. There is no showing that the center is deluding its worshipers for personal or financial gain in violation of our criminal laws.

But as an ordinary citizen, I am concerned about this latest accommodation of Erap, who is a detention prisoner facing charges of plunder. He has been denied bail because plunder is a capital offense and evidence of his guilt is strong. His co-accused are also detained for the same reasons but do not enjoy his extraordinary privileges.

I have said several times in this column that persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Under the equal protection clause, there must be equality among equals.

But some people claim that the guarantee in the Bill of Rights is not applicable to Estrada because he is a former President of the Philippines. As such, he cannot be considered an equal of others who, unlike him, have not served in that position.

That view would make Joseph Estrada sui generis or a class unto himself. That means he should not be treated like others who, like him, are accused of violating the law by committing the crime of plunder, or for that matter any crime. Reductio ad absurdum, he would be immune from the operation of our laws because of his sacrosanct status as a former, although discredited, president.

Erap’s claimed immunity has already been dismissed by the Supreme Court in Estrada v. Desierto, 356 SCRA 108, which held that it was not available to him as a non-sitting president. It even cited American cases where Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, as sitting presidents, were held subject to the jurisdiction of the courts.

Coming back to Estrada’s pilgrimage to the center, what if there were other non-bailable detention prisoners who, like him, believe in the healing powers of Sister Gloria and also want her to “pray over” them? Should they be denied the privilege extended to Erap because they are not former tenants of Malacañang?

The papers say there were mammoth and expensive security measures taken by the PNP during Estrada’s trip to and from the center. Besides a 15-car convoy, a helicopter hovered along the way to oversee the proceedings below. No less than 1.000 soldiers, including 200 policemen from Caloocan City, were assigned to protect the ex-president.

What if some bank-robbery or an NPA attack had occurred during that time Erap rode to the center, underwent treatment there for 5 hours, and then returned to the Veterans Memorial Medical Center where he is detained? The 1,000 security forces guarding Erap would have been unavailable to resist such attacks.

The expenditure of half a million pesos to guarantee Estrada’s safety was unconscionable. That amount could have been better spent for the benefit of the poor, particularly during this season of goodwill to all men. The street children, for example, could have been given more food and better clothing for their Yuletide cheer. Instead, the cost of the gasoline alone, including the aviation gas for the helicopter, was staggeringly heartless.

Permission for this unnecessary trip was given by the First Division of the Sandiganbayan trying the plunder case against Estrada. It is strange that its members, who are all lawyers, should be so unmindful of the legal (and also financial) implications of their decision to allow the discredited leader this incredible and apparently exclusive caprice.

A court of law must base its decisions on the facts and the law of the case and not on any other consideration not permitted by the Constitution. Erap’s special pass cannot be excused simply because it was given during this festive period. There are many prisoners who are also detained for the capital crime of plunder but, unlike him, need more cheer than he during their lonely Yuletide.

Courts may temper their decisions with compassion but only within limits, and never in violation of the Constitution. The spirit of the season cannot justify undue favoritism that will discriminate against others and misuse public funds that should be put to better use. The ideal of reconciliation and national unity is no pretext either because Erap is already marginalized and no longer excites loyalty but only curiosity.

One may say that the Estrada excursion is over and done with and there’s no more point in talking about it. There is, for the purpose of avoiding its repetition. If Estrada discovers another healing center in Mindanao, will they dotingly fly him there too because he is a former president?

House arrest for Erap, December 14, 2002

BY THE time this article goes to press, the authorities may have reached their decision on the plan to allow Joseph Estrada house arrest during the Christmas season. I am against it. It violates the equal protection clause, which requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.

The plan reportedly has the support of a number of prominent people, among them Speaker Jose de Venecia and the heads of several religious denominations, including the Iglesia ni Cristo and the El Shaddai and Jesus Is Lord groups. Cardinal Ricardo Vidal of the Catholic Church is also in favor.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who initially opposed the idea, is said to be rethinking her stand because of her recent drop in the popularity surveys. This would mean that she will endorse the Erap house arrest if there are enough voters supporting it but will continue to oppose it if the majority of the people are against.

Actually, the support of the people mentioned here is irrelevant to the Sandiganbayan that has the authority to decide the matter. Judicial decisions are based not on popular consensus, even if backed by influential persons, but on the facts and the law of each particular case.

The motion for Estrada’s house arrest was denied months ago by that court but his lawyers have filed a motion for reconsideration that has yet to be resolved. Pending its resolution, the arguments of the public for or against Erap’s house arrest could be viewed as an interference with judicial function and, following current jurisprudence, may be regarded as contempt of court.

I personally do not subscribe to this restrictive doctrine, but lower courts, following the highest tribunal, may not brook such intrusion even from the leaders named above. As a private individual, however, without the influence (and possible immunity) of Cory Aquino and Mike Velarde, I will risk the ire of the Sandiganbayan and submit my separate opinion on the matter.

The purpose of the equal protection clause is to avoid undue favoritism or discrimination in the enactment or operation of the law. The law cannot be enforced “with an evil eye and an uneven hand.” Persons or things belonging to the same class, that is, sharing the same characteristics, should not be treated with partiality for some of them and enmity for the others. There must be equality among equals.

The clause does not call for the universal application of the law because not all persons or things are similar to each other in every respect. That is why the guaranty allows what is known as a classification, which is the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars. A good illustration is the grouping of women, who possess similar reproductive organs that differentiate them from men.

Erap belongs to the class of persons accused of the capital offense of plunder and so should be treated in the same manner as all other persons charged with the same offense. The crime is punishable with death and evidence of his guilt is strong, which is why he has been denied bail under Sec. 13 of the Bill of Rights. Other persons in similar circumstances are also detained without bail under the exception provided for in the said provision.

In fact, Erap enjoys some privileges not available to the other members of his class who are confined in ordinary detention places. He was originally offered the comforts of a cottage in Laguna (which he complained about) until he was transferred to his present address at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center. He once gave a party there and enjoys other amenities like the 24-hour medical care unless he prefers the services of other doctors.

Parenthetically, his son Jinggoy is permitted to stay with him and enjoy the same indulgences and facilities, unlike other persons also being prosecuted for plunder. The only excuse is that he is his father’s son. This compounds the favoritism extended to the Estradas and the discrimination against their co-accused, who also want to enjoy Christmas in the bosom of their families.

It is argued that allowing house arrest for Estrada would promote national reconciliation. On the contrary, it might only resurrect forgotten rancors and divide rather than unite the nation.

The justification for Erap’s favorable treatment compared to that of other persons similarly indicted is that he used to be president of the Philippines. His privileges may be allowed on that ground, but only within reasonable limits. And they certainly cannot be extended to his son Jinggoy, who is only a former municipal mayor.

Allowing house arrest for Joseph Estrada would entail more public expense, which could be bloated even more with the additional funds to be spent by the government in guarding its favorite prisoner. Worse, it would emphasize the double standard of the courts in enforcing the Bill of Rights as the inviolate protector of all the people.

The medical malpractice bill, August 24, 2002

THE HOUSE of Representatives is currently studying a medical malpractice bill that was originally filed in 1992 and has now been revived by some congressmen who claim to have suffered adverse medical experiences to justify its passage.

Only recently, one of them declared on television that he had undergone surgery for the removal of his gallstones, which turned out to be one solitary gallstone about the size of a mongo bean. Worse, the operation caused serious collateral damage to his health, including intense body pain that required his prolonged confinement in the hospital. He says the hospital and its doctors impliedly admitted their fault and negligence in his treatment by not charging him a single centavo for their services.

Reacting to many similar reports of alleged medical malpractice, Dr. Ma. Dominga Padilla sent me a copy of House Bill No. 4955 “punishing the malpractice of any medical practitioner in the Philippines,” including physicians, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, paramedical or other supporting personnel like medical and dental technicians, nursing assistants and therapists.

She also enclosed a copy of the official position of the Philippine Medical Association against the measure and her own article challenging the legality and practicability of the bill, which she says ought to be rejected. Dr. Padilla is the founder and president of the Eye Bank Foundation of the Philippines, an officer of the Philippine Academy of Ophthalmology, and a member of the Philippine College of Surgeons of the PMA.

Supporters of the bill cite the present relative helplessness of the public against the malpractices of the medical and allied professions, particularly their clannish tendency to protect one another from the charges made against them by outsiders, i.e., their patients. Unlike in other cultures, we do not place much value on the oath, which is blithely disregarded even by doctors when testifying in favor of their colleagues in malpractice suits.

The critics invoke a number of constitutional provisions against the bill, among them the equal protection clause that should apply (but does not) to other professionals, the due process clause in view of the vagueness in the definition of certain terms like “malpractice” itself, and the right against double jeopardy insofar as it might subject the accused to prosecution under the bill and also the Revised Penal Code.

These allegations are not easily accepted because they require the lawyer’s analysis, not the doctor’s. They are not as easily understood, with all their legal exceptions and complications, as the cure of the common cold or the removal of a wart. The equal protection clause, for example, does not call for its universal application because not all subjects of the law are similarly situated. What that clause requires is equality among equals.

But I do agree completely with the doctors that one provision of the medical malpractice bill is clearly unconstitutional. This is the penalty clause, which provides that “medical malpractice and the practice of illegal surgery shall be punished by prision mayor and the cancellation of the license to practice the medical profession and a fine ranging from P500,000 to P1,000,000 in the discretion of the court.”

I have no quarrel with prision mayor, which ranges from six years and one day to 12 years, but the fine is another matter. The language of the bill is conjunctive, not disjunctive, which means it must be imposed in every case.

Section 20 of the Bill of Rights clearly and expressly provides that “excessive fines shall not be imposed.” Even at the current peso exchange rate, the amount of P500,000 to P1,000,000 cannot be considered peanuts; it is unquestionably excessive by any standard. Moreover, the due process clause requires an equivalence between the offense and the penalty, unlike under the bill in question, where the fine can be as high as a million pesos. It is like punishing jaywalking with life imprisonment.

With all its present inadequacies, the only effect of the bill, if passes, will be to require medical and other allied professionals to take medical insurance for their own protection. They will also require the patient to undergo all kinds of tests, some of them unnecessary, to avoid errors in diagnosing and treating the ailment, if any. The cost of all these precautions will be charged, of course, to the patient.

It was so different before, when the General Practitioner was a jack-of-all-trades and could tell the patient’s illness by simply feeling his pulse and examining his tongue. But we’re in a different age today, where our lives depend on what the computers tell the doctors, who must obey to avoid malpractice suits and even criminal prosecution. Better to be safe than sorry.

“The realities of death and suffering are things that medical practitioners have to face almost daily,” says Dr. Padilla in assailing the bill. “And just as we know that it is our duty to do our best to alleviate suffering and save lives, we also humbly acknowledge that there is only so much our best can achieve. And when these failures comes, we agonize. We are but human although forced to play God. It is a great privilege, but an even greater burden.”

Delay is the Best Defense, February 2, 2002

NOW the Estrada lawyers are protesting the creation of a special division in the Sandiganbayan to try their client. Earlier, they had asked for the disqualification of Chair Anacleto Badoy and Justice Teresita de Castro of the Third Division on the ground of bias against Erap. Now they are questioning the special division as violative of the equal protection clause.

Under the Bill of Rights, persons or things similarly situated should be similarly treated both as to rights conferred and liabilities imposed. They say that while a special division has been created to try Erap, no similar action has been taken to expedite the long pending Marcos cases. They claim that the disparity is intended to favor the Marcoses and discriminate against Estrada.

The trials of the Marcos cases have indeed been inordinately delayed, but it is not exactly true that Estrada and the Marcoses are similarly situated. This may be correct insofar as they are facing charges before the Sandiganbayan of betrayal of the public trust. But the similarity ends there.

Estrada is being prosecuted for, among other offenses, the heinous crime of plunder, which is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death. The Marcoses are also charged with having stolen more than P50 million of public funds, but they cannot be prosecuted under the Plunder Law. This was approved only on June 12, 1991, after the commission of their alleged crimes,and so would be prohibited as an ex post facto law if applied to them.

While protesting the special division, Estrada’s lawyers disregard the fact that he is being accorded unusual privileges not allowed other persons also facing prosecution for plunder.

From the very start, Estrada was assigned comfortable quarters in Laguna and even honored with a personal visit from the new President. When he complained about his accommodations, the government again leaned over backward and transferred him to the Veterans Memorial Medical Center. Unlike other detention prisoners similarly situated, he is allowed extraordinary amenities, like long visits from relatives and friends, round-the-clock hospital attention, and catered meals.

It may be argued that, as a former president, Erap is in a class by himself and so is entitled to better treatment than other detainees. This may be conceded provided the administration does not go overboard in trying to please him. The Sandiganbayan acted correctly in denying him permission to go abroad for untenable medical reasons. His successful cataract operation by our own doctors proved he should not have belittled their competence.

But although Erap may deserve some liberties because of his quondam if discredited status, the grant of similar courtesies to his son Jinggoy, who is also accused in the plunder case, cannot be justified.  Jinggoy is not a former president but only an ex-municipal mayor. The exceptional leniency allowed his father is not automatically available to him owing alone to their relationship.

Estrada’s lawyers also represent Jinggoy, but they have not been heard to defend his being treated like his father. While quick to invoke the equal protection clause for the father, they would rather not talk about it as it applies to the son. As an ordinary person, Jinggoy should be treated like the other ordinary persons also charged with plunder. These are the persons who can complain of discrimination for not being allowed to share the unwarranted privileges Erap’s son enjoys.

The real purpose of Erap’s counsel is, obviously, to throw another roadblock at his trial and further prolong it. They have become proficient with this habitual but often baseless tactic. Peter Wallace, that perceptive observer of the current scene, wonders why they are systematically obstructing the proceedings when they are so sure, or so they say, that their client will be acquitted. Estrada himself says he wants the trial concluded soon, but his lawyers have other plans. Last week they reiterated their motion to disqualify Justice de Castro.

Regarding the Marcos cases, their activation after their courageous hibernation has long become overdue. I suggest that the Supreme Court create another special division in the Sandiganbayan to dispose of them as quickly as possible. My reason is not the inapplicable equal protection clause but the imperative need to categorically rule at last on the accountabilities of the Marcos family. In temporizing these many years on this crucial matter, the courts have in effect penalized the accused if they are innocent and exonerated them if they are guilty.

And still on the subject of delay, what’s the latest development on the Mark Jimenez extradition proceedings begun on June 18, 1999? Even as the US government is vigorously prosecuting Atong Ang as an unwelcome alien, we in the Philippines seem to be coddling the seemingly immune congressman by sitting on his case. There is no more doubt that in this jurisdiction, delay is the best defense.

Is the government afraid of Misuari? December 30, 2001

IT HAS become increasingly clear that in Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, we have a most indecisive President. I will not say this is due to female fickleness because there are women who are able to stand fast on their decisions once they make up their mind. Ms. Gloria’s weakness is hers alone.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was a resolute leader and earned the affectionate sobriquet of “The Iron Lady.” One of her admirable virtues was her forthrightness when confronted with a sticky issue. She did not vacillate like some people we know. Compared to her, our own President is like Jell-O.

President Arroyo’s uncertainties have never been more obvious than in her recent and current conduct of the Nur Misuari affair. When the notorious fugitive was arrested in Malaysia last month for illegal entry, everybody expected our government to request his return to our country for prosecution. Instead, according to the headlines at that time, President Arroyo declined Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s offer to deliver Misuari back to us. In effect, she said, “Thanks, but no thanks. You can keep him.”

That initial reaction puzzled many people, perhaps including Mahathir himself who wants to get rid of the unwelcome foreigner. Soon enough, her ear always attuned to the political winds, Mrs. Arroyo was singing a different tune to soothe the public backlash.

Her government then said it was going to make a formal request for Misuari’s return but only after Malaysia shall have finished investigating his minor offense. That request was supposed to be made by December 24, but that day has come and gone, and Misuari is still out there. The Department of Foreign Affairs appeared to be confused without a clear signal from the President. She was still dilly-dallying like an insecure teen-ager. 

The other Cabinet members seemed to be also in the dark about their President’s intentions. Executive Secretary Alberto P. Romulo, the Little President, was quoted the other week as saying, “As far as I know, I think he will be returned here.” National Security Adviser Roilo Golez said our government would take Misuari back, but he could have been pre-empting his boss. President Gloria had said then that she would make her decision only after meeting with the Organization of Islamic Conference leaders next month.

On the 21st, though, the papers announced that after conferring with the OIC leaders the night before (not next month), President Gloria had finally decided to accept Misuari sometime this coming January. Arrangements are reportedly being made between the Philippines and Malaysia to rid the latter at last of its unwanted visitor.

All this is welcome news provided our President does not waver again. Her decision this time is not unilateral but was reached in consultation and agreement with the representatives of Malaysia and Indonesia. These countries saw fit to intervene on behalf of the OIC because they regard Misuari, although wanted by our police, as vested with some extraordinary belligerent exemption.

I do not see what possible connection or influence the OIC may have on our President’s action, which she herself says involves an internal matter under the exclusive jurisdiction of our own country. Misuari is just a citizen of the Philippines accused of violating our own laws and does not enjoy any diplomatic status. It is not as if he were an international person or a foreign dignitary entitled to the traditional courtesies and immunities observed under the law of nations.

 Golez may entertain this obsequious brainstorm because I heard him say on TV that “Misuari is an important figure and so must be treated with respect.” That’s absolute rot, of course. It suggests that other persons do not have to be respected because they are not important like Misuari. I’m sure Golez did not mean it that way, but he should be more careful with his public remarks lest he visit the wrath of unimportant persons like us upon his head.

Every person is important regardless of stature and deserves to be respected, especially if he is not facing criminal charges like Misuari. Misuari must be respected like any other person, but not more so because of his notoriety.

I think President Gloria and her national security adviser are dealing ever so carefully with Misuari because they are afraid of him. The commander-in-chief, with all the armed forces at her beck and call, doesn’t dare anger Misuari lest he blow his broken bugle and call his ragtag rebels to arms against the Republic. The derelict MNLF leader is brandishing his rusted kampilan again like a wasted warlord, and the government is quaking in its boots.

Resuming his threadbare rebellion is Misuari’s ploy to escape the criminal charges against him. He is using – translation: exploiting – his gullible followers to scare the daylights out of Gloria and her generals. Fear of this failed figure should not deter President Arroyo from performing her constitutional duty to execute the laws and prosecute Misuari like any other suspected felon.

Even now, the authorities are reportedly preparing to roll the red carpet for Misuari and to detain him in comfortable quarters just like the Estradas. He will also be a Very Important Prisoner. The justification for this special treatment is the usual “national security” that Marcos used effectively to oppress his enemies under martial law. Now President Arroyo, in a curious reversal, is using the same pretext to favor hers.

Rizal, who embraced martyrdom at the Luneta 105 years ago today, must be wondering if the present condition of our country was worth his sacrifice. Did the patriot die so our government could, among other absurdities, cater to the likes of Nur Misuari?

Special treatment, December 15, 2001

IT was bad enough when Joseph Estrada complained of his detention at Camp Crame and President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo ordered the furnishing of a special cottage for him at Sta. Rosa, Laguna, with air-conditioning, curtains and other comfortable appointments.

It was worse when the hard-to-please former President, accustomed as he was to the good life among his extended families and taipan cronies, still was not satisfied with his improved lodgings and the ever-obliging President Arroyo had him transferred to the Veterans Memorial Medical Center, where, characteristically, he is still carping.

Many people have criticized his special treatment by the administration, but I suppose he is entitled to the extraordinary courtesy being extended to him in deference to his former status as President of the Philippines. After all, it’s not every day that a sitting president is evicted from Malacañang and accused of the heinous crime of plunder, among other serious offenses.

What is questionable, though, is why Jinggoy Estrada is sharing the special privileges being accorded his sire when his only distinction is that he is the son of his father.

That relationship does not entitle him to the same treatment being enjoyed by Erap because of his former exalted status. Jinggoy’s only credential is that he used to be an ordinary municipal mayor. He became the president of the mayor’s league only for the reason (again) that Erap was the president of the country.

Recently, Jinggoy was allowed to transfer to another hospital because of his alleged heart ailment. The former actor complained of chest pains and the Sandiganbayan was apparently convinced that he not merely acting. Jinggoy is already confined with his father at the VMMC but he felt he should be treated in a better hospital. He can afford to remain there indefinitely on the advice of his own doctors.

Before giving its permission, did the Sandiganbayan seek the opinion of other competent and more objective cardiologists? I hope it did not rely only on the say-so of Jinggoy’s own doctors, whose independence is suspect if only because their patient is paying their fees, let alone their competence. 

Meanwhile, other detention prisoners are cramped in filthy and oppressively hot detention cells with hardly enough sleeping space for the inmates who have to take turns to lie down. Unlike the Estradas, who are charged with a capital offense, many of them are accused only of minor offenses but cannot raise the small amount needed for their release on bail. Erap and Jinggoy are now asking for a Christmas furlough, but only for them and not their fellow detention prisoners.

And as if all this coddling of the Estradas were not enough, the country is confronted by another absurdity in the case of Nur Misuari. This is the man who muffed his official position as governor of the ARMM and has resumed the leadership of the resurrected MNLF to which President Fidel V. Ramos practically accorded recognition of belligerency in 1996.

After the flare-up of MNLF rebellion allegedly at his command, Misuari disappeared, leaving his followers in the lurch. He re-appeared later in Malaysia, where he was arrested for entering the country without valid travel papers. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad notified the Philippines that his government had Misuari in its custody and offered to send him back. Unbelievably, our own President Arroyo refused to accept him and told the Malaysians that they could keep their foreign outlaw; we did not want him here.

That must have mystified Mahathir. Usually, the country of origin implores the return of its fugitive suspects by the country to which they have fled, but Ms. Arroyo reversed the process and declined to accept Misuari. We have requested the extradition of Charlie Atong Ang, Yolanda Ricaforte, Michael Rey Aquino and Cesar Mancao by the United States and Rodolfo Pacificador by Canada, but unsuccessfully so far. The United States has been exerting efforts for the extradition of Mark Jimenez, but we have even elected him to Congress.

By contrast, here was Malaysia offering to return Misuari to the Philippines without much ado and Ms. Arroyo, instead of accepting the unconditional gesture, said, Thanks, but no thanks, you can deal with him under your own laws. In other words, she would prefer Malaysia to prosecute him for entering its territory illegally instead to the Philippines prosecuting him for the more serious offenses allegedly committed in our territory.

Undocumented aliens are subject to only light penalties, if at all prosecuted for their minor offense. The crimes imputed to Misuari by our government include rebellion and malversation of billions of pesos allocated to the ARMM during his term as its governor.

It is reassuring, though, that Ms. Arroyo, reacting to the public perplexity over her quizzical behavior over Misuari’s surrender, has changed her mind and is now willing to accept the notorious fugitive, courtesy of the Malaysian government. Once delivered to us, Misuari will be arrested and made to face the criminal charges now being prepared against him by the justice department.

What is disturbing is the report that our government is ready to roll the red carpet for Misuari and treat him as another celebrity like the Estradas. Where he will be confined is a toss-up between Fort Magsaysay in Nueva Ecija or in the cottage originally assigned to former President Estrada at Sta. Rosa, Laguna, both of them provided with all the comforts of home. The sub-standard detention cells for ordinary persons are out of the question. They are not fit for the likes of Joseph and Jinggoy Estrada and, now, Nur Misuari.

First, we were shocked by the cushy treatment of influential convicted prisoners like Romeo Jalosjos. Then we could only shake our heads over the amenities extended to Joseph Estrada and even his son Jinggoy, who is allowed to bask in his father’s privileges. And now comes another dignitary to be given exceptional if also undeserved attention, the Honorable Nur Misuari.