Justice for Satur, Justice for All

By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer
Last updated 01:55am (Mla time) 03/26/2007


MANILA, Philippines – The gall of these people!

Eduardo Ermita says sori na lang: Satur Ocampo would have been spared the attentions the authorities are showering him now if he had merely availed of the amnesty offered by Presidents Aquino and Ramos during their time. Raul Gonzalez choruses, tsk, tsk, Ocampo is not covered by the amnesty given by the two past presidents simply because he did not apply for it. “If the President grants amnesty,” he says philosophically, “you must apply.”

What arrant nonsense.

At the very least, what’s wrong with it is what Ocampo himself has to say about it. He never applied for the amnesty because he never committed the crimes he was accused of. Why on earth, or hell, should he ask to be pardoned for a crime he did not commit? Indeed, why on earth, or on any other planet, should he admit to a crime he did not commit?

It’s the third time now, says Ocampo, that he has been accused of these crimes—during Marcos’ time when he was in detention; during Cory’s time when he was again in detention; and now during Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s time, for which he has been put in detention. And each time, the case against him failed. I thought we proscribed double jeopardy? I thought we observed the principle that a man may not be tried for the same case twice? This isn’t double jeopardy, this is triple jeopardy!

What makes Ermita’s and Gonzalez’s statements doubly stupid is that they openly suggest that Ocampo is not being accused of an ordinary crime but of a political one. One committed in the course of pursuing a political cause and, therefore, deserving of amnesty. If Ocampo were truly guilty of murder in the sense that we normally understand it, in the sense of the spectacle we are being regaled with today (journalists and political activists are being routinely gunned down by assassins), why should he be pardoned whether there is amnesty or not? The killers of James Rowe were not. If Ocampo fell in the same category, then he should rot in hell, or in jail. Ermita and Gonzalez themselves suggest he does not belong in either.

What makes their statements galling is more than the smugness with which they say them. What makes them so is the way they or the government they represent presume to sit in judgment over Ocampo. They should not be judging, they should be judged.

I do know someone who has committed a monumental crime, a crime far worse than the murder of a person, or even the wholesale slaughter of an entire tribe. That is the murder of a nation, that is the murder of a people. Or what is but the same thing, that is the murder of democracy, that is the murder of freedom. I do know someone who admitted that crime, albeit with every effort to mislead the public about it. I do know someone who applied for pardon for it, saying robotically “I…am…sorry…”, notwithstanding that the ultimate rulers of this country, who are the People, have not issued a proclamation of amnesty and who certainly would not have included that crime among those pardonable by God or man even if they had done so.

I do know someone who has not been or will ever be covered by any amnesty. I do know someone who has asked to be pardoned for the mother of all crimes, but has not been pardoned for it or can ever be pardoned for it.

But she has not been prosecuted or harassed like Satur Ocampo. She has been installed in office and, like Marcos, praised by her fawners. She does not have a tiny cell in Muntinlupa, she has an office that dwarfs her in Malacañang.

But far more than any of these, the spectacle of GMA, Ermita, Gonzalez and ilk presuming to sit in judgment over Satur Ocampo is not unlike Imelda Marcos, Fabian Ver, Juan Ponce Enrile and ilk presuming to sit in judgment over Corazon Aquino. The fact that Ocampo is being accused of crimes he apparently committed during martial law only calls attention to who Ocampo and his accusers were during martial law and what contributions they’ve made to this country.

Ocampo was a journalist who, finding that the sword could be an ally of the pen, risked life and limb to join a group that was fighting to liberate this country from dictatorship. For which pains he was caught, tortured and detained for a good many years of his life, while trumped-up charges were filed against him as they were against everyone who tried to cut down the barbed wire strung across this country. By all rights, Ocampo should be hailed a hero for fighting and helping to restore this country’s freedoms, along with all those who died or were scarred for life for doing the same thing—Left, Right, or Center, it doesn’t matter. And by all rights, all those self-proclaimed heroes that sprouted after the bells pealed victory should be dragged to Bagumbayan and made to share Rizal’s fate minus the reverence.

What contributions Ermita, Gonzalez and ilk made during that time only they know. Indeed, what they were doing at that time, other than scratching the globules dangling down their apparent manhood, only they know. It’s criminal enough that we’ve never given people like Ocampo their due for what they’ve done to end a tyranny. It’s an absolute atrocity that they should be pilloried for it by people who may not hold up a cigarette lighter—never mind candle—to them.

During those dark years of martial law, we had a phrase that perfectly captured our common plight of oppression and our perception that a humongous injustice done to one person—Left, Right, or Center, it did not matter—was a humongous injustice done to us all. That phrase was, “Justice for Ninoy, justice for all.” In these dark years of de facto martial law, we have a phrase that does the same thing:

“Justice for Satur, justice for all.”