Nuffnang ad

Friday, March 2, 2012

Weasel


(Photo courtesy of bworldonline.com)

That's what Corona is, if he persists doing what today's headline says.

According to lead defense counsel Justice Serafin Cuevas, Chief Justice Renato Corona will NOT testify in the impeachment trial.

(See: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/154579/cuevas-corona-won%E2%80%99t-testify)

And I say this with conviction because the exact same thing happened to me during the course of my work life: I was accused, wrongly, of doing actions that I never did, and received a formal complaint.

The accuser, at that point in time, was someone with a higher rank in the organization than me. (He has since been relieved of his position and demoted.) He wrote a formal letter, charging me of things that I would never consciously and willfully do, deflecting the issue to me when the subject matter at hand - a technical aspect - was his jurisdiction, and clients were displeased with his response time. He chose to highlight our interaction as the focal point, sidestepping the fact that he was remiss in his official duties.

The fact that he was demoted and removed from his position should tell you what happened.

I was informed by my immediate superior that there would be a tribunal for this administrative case. (True enough, there were three "judges".) There was a set date, and I was told that my accuser and I would face each other and we could present our case then they would render a ruling, based on the merits of the facts, our sides, and what the company rules allow.

The "hearing" was set for 3PM, but I was already in the "courtroom" by 2PM. The "judges" weren't even there, and neither was my accuser.

I could not wait for the "trial" to get underway because I was innocent and wanted to face my accuser and say this to him straight to his face.


Two of the "judges" arrived on time, while one was late. The "prosecution", in turns out, was a no-show.

They read the letter of the accuser - who accused me of barging in a meeting to supposedly berate him in front of other people - and that my conduct was unbecoming.

When they asked me how it was, in fact, that we had an interaction (we both agree on that point, it was how we had an interaction that was the point of dispute), I told them my side:

There was a technical breakdown where I was supposed to conduct my class, the clients were waiting for it to be fixed to no avail - the tech people couldn't do anything - and I was looking for someone to assist the tech people, and that's how I came across the accuser, who had an overarching responsibility for the technical operations of the office.

He was standing in the hallway, facing the full length mirror, popping a pimple.

One of the "judges", who was never a fan of me or my forthrightness, told me that "we have a problem, because he has a different version of the events that transpired."

I said, "Exactly! That's the reason we're here, right? I was actually surprised when you (tribunal) informed me that I supposedly barged in a private meeting and scolded him in front of other people...I would never do that, if you even knew who I am and my personality, I have an unwavering commitment to respecting people's boundaries so I would never, ever do something as outrageous as that."

Not My Fan then says to no one in particular: "Where is (my accuser)?"

Silence as no one knew where he was.

Late Judge decided to look for the accuser. And then he came back, then told us: "Nasa office sya, busy daw sya ngayon, di daw sya makakapunta." (He's in the office, he sends word that he's very busy and won't be able to make it.)

I must have spewed fire and my eyes must have gone ablaze because all the "judges" were wide-eyed and in shock when I next said: "Excuse me?!? His office is on this same floor, we're not more than 100 feet away, and he cannot pop in here for even 15 minutes?!? What kind of a hearing is this, where everyone is present except the accuser?!? The whole reason, the whole point that we are even doing this exercise is because he has accused me of something reprehensible that I supposedly did, one which has consequences in our company, and now that I'm here to tell you and especially him that he LIED in his so-called report, he doesn't even have the BALLS to face me?!?"

The three judges "confer" and decide to call the meeting "adjourned" since the other party is absent. I then take Not My Fan to task and ask: "I need something clarified: Just because he has a higher (organization) rank than everyone here in this room (including the judges), he is allowed to flat out lie in his reports, and he does not have to be subjected to this hearing/process if he doesn't feel like it?"

NMF: "Of course not, and he should have been here to face you." NMF then proceeds to try a Kumbaya speech, about how we should all get along in the company, ad nauseum, and here was the clincher - an eerie one, since it mirrors what's happening now in the trial:

"However we feel about him, we still should give respect to him, by virtue of his position."

I could feel my eyes bulging out: "Now THAT is something I CANNOT and WILL NOT do. I acknowledge, like all of you here, that he has a higher rank than all of us. That's what it says in his calling card, that's what he is in this company.

But I will not be FORCED to respect someone who lazes around and has the time to be popping zits in a hallway mirror and doesn't have the decency to do it in the bathroom while things under his direct supervision are falling apart, turns around and constructs LIES in a formal report, and cannot even stand in front of me to tell them to my face, even as I am itching to refute everything he says because he LIED?!?

I've always been taught that respect is EARNED. And he has not only not earned it, he has shown himself to be unworthy of it."

As I said, this "official" was later removed from his position - the general consensus was that things directly under him took a turn for the worst when he took over - and was demoted.

I see this person at work. He turns his nose up and "snubs" me every time we cross paths. Siya pa ang may ganang ganung umasta, gayong sya ang sinungaling at natanggal sa pwesto. (He has the audacity to act so imperiously, when he was caught lying and was removed from his position.)

Di ko pinapatulan (I don't take the bait) because we both know who told the truth, and who won.

That's how I know that Corona, despite the motherhood statements about the "rule of law", "innocent until proven guilty", "in due time", and "wait for the defense", has a very different view about how to go about clearing his name. Whereas I couldn't wait for my trial to begin, so I can face my accuser and say to his face "LIAR" because I have the truth on my side, Corona is doing everything possible to avoid facing the charges squarely.

One of Corona's lawyers says it may be a chance for Corona's foes to "taunt", "ridicule" and "make fun" of him/his office/his family.

It doesn't sound any different from my "accuser" who said he was "too busy" to face me.

EXCUSES.

Which is why my accuser, I can say with all conviction, is a weasel.

And if Corona doesn't face up to his charges personally in this trial, that's what he will be thought of as:

(Photo courtesy of kiltedsnowweasels.com)

6 comments:

  1. Well stated, and I enjoy the photo at the end! The IC is in danger of becoming a kangaroo court, if it isn't one already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. If only weasels were as cute as the last picture.

      Delete
  2. Cross Examination Questions on Corona:

    Prosecutor: Mr. Corona, may I remind you that you are under oath. Do you confirm that you have a DOLLAR DEPOSIT ACCT with any bank in the Phils?

    Corona: YES, I have.

    Prosecutor: Since when did you open that dollar account?

    Corona: I opened that account in the year ______.

    Prosecutor: Did you include that in your annual SALN since you became an Associate Justice and until you become the Thief Justice?

    Corona: Mmmmmmmmmm, Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.

    Prosecutor: @#$%^&*()_!

    Prosecutor: Mr. Corona, may I remind you that you are under oath. Do you confirm that you have a DOLLAR DEPOSIT ACCT with any bank in the Phils?

    Corona: NO, I don’t have any dollar account.

    Prosecutor: If you have none, then why on earth did you file a petition at the Supreme Court to enjoin the Senate as an Impeachment Court from issuing a subpoena to the PS Bank?

    Corona: Mmmmmmmmmm, Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.

    Prosecutor: @#$%^&*()_!

    Prosecutor: Mr. Corona, may I remind you that you are under oath. Do you confirm that you have a DOLLAR DEPOSIT ACCT with any bank in the Phils?

    Corona: I invoke my right against self-incrimination.

    Prosecutor: So, you neither confirm nor deny that you have a dollar account?

    Corona: Yes, sir.

    Prosecutor: Your honors, may I move that a subpoena be issued to the PS Bank Manager of Katipunan Branch to identify the true owner of the Dollar Deposit under the account name: Renato Corona. We will present the Branch Manager during the reception of rebuttal evidence, your honors. Thank you.

    Corona: Mmmmmmmmmm, Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.

    Prosecutor: @#$%^&*()_!

    THIS IS PRECISELY THE REASON WHY CUEVAS WOULD NOT PUT CORONA ON THE WITNESS STAND. THE DEFENSE IS VERY MUCH AFRAID OF THIS SCENARIO. EITHER WAY, CORONA IS GUILTY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been LOL-ing at the scenarios, hahaha :)

      Delete
  3. Ikaw naman. The poor weasel does not deserve to be compared to an a-hole like Corona.

    ReplyDelete