Many are asking what really was agreed upon by the Aquino administration and the powerful Iglesia ni Cristo (INC), when the religious sect’s scheduled 5-day protest against the alleged meddling of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima in their church’s internal problem was suddenly aborted on its third day yet?
Indeed, it is for a good reason that people are questioning the sudden end to their planned nationwide demonstration because, while many have supported the move of de Lima to probe the complaint of illegal detention case filed by former INC minister Isaias Samson Jr. against the Church’s leaders, countless others are thinking that maybe the country’s leaders blinked first and succumbed to the might of the bloc voting INC members.
I am not a lawyer, so let me just invite you to a comment made by jorge on my preceding blog, ‘Giving INC preferential treatment is wrong’ or you can click this link: https://quierosaber.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/giving-inc-preferential-treatment-is-wrong/. The case in question is well explained and I have nothing to add to it.
Suffice to say that if de Lima pursues the case, then we can be hopeful that she is there to uphold the rule of law and not be intimidated by the rule of powerful individuals.
On the other hand, if de Lima decides to drop this illegal detention case of Samson against some powerful officers of the INC, serious as it is, then we can only be certain that accusations of selective justice by some quarters against the Aquino administration is true and justified.
Whether de Lima resigns now or later, because she is made to run for the senate under the Liberal Party (LP), still not pursuing the Samson case will not bode well for her candidacy. She will not only lose the trust and confidence of the Filipino people, but her credibility will be shattered, too, to the disappointment of many.
Whether under de Lima’s watch or not, probing to the end the Samson allegation of illegal detention has to be done so people can say that, indeed, the INC and the church it represents is not above the law, and that the State has the right to get in the way when man’s constitutionally guaranteed freedom is violated.