A few days ago a brutal crime happened in Tagum City, Davao del Norte.
Yes, a freshman college student at the University of the Philippines in Mintal who graduated with honors in her senior high school year at Ateneo de Davao University was murdered – stabbed 38 times inside her home. The victim’s name is Sophia Marie Coquilla, 19 years old.
It was not expressly reported whether her home in Tagum City was robbed or whether she was molested. What is clear, however, is that the perpetrators are reportedly all minors. Luckily, the suspects are reportedly arrested by the police. The news report said they owned up to the crime. That development in solving the crime against a young woman is one very laudable feat of the police organization in Tagum City.
Unfortunately however, the exceptional speed in arresting the suspects is marred by the very legal system that is supposed to punish those who committed serious infractions of the law.
Imagine, just because the alleged criminals are minors, they cannot be detained in a regular jail! They are instead protected supposedly for the purpose of their easy rehabilitation, by Republic Act 9433 primarily authored by now come backing senator Kiko Pangilinan.
Instead, the young murderers are currently in the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Under the same law, these criminals can only be moved to permanent jails once they reach the age of 18, and there are no signs that they are changing their characters for the better.
After knowing substantial information related to the Coquilla murder, it is our take that our national lawmakers, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, must take a serious look at this particular law. They should make some comparison between the advantages and disadvantages of applying the said law to serious crimes involving minors as suspected perpetrators.
And should the lawmakers most of whom are members of the younger generation, find the law now unresponsive to the very objective that it was passed and adopted, then perhaps now is the time that this must be amended.
For this purpose, we challenge the young congressman from Tagum to spearhead in the Lower House the efforts to amend the law. Perhaps it would be even better if he enlists the support of the other congressmen in the Davao Region.
We also dare the father and daughter leaders of the Province of Davao del Norte, where Tagum is a component city, to trigger relevant activities that will guide the Davao Region lawmakers to seriously look into the law so they will join their peers from Tagum in initiating much-needed amendments.
Or will they just wait for several other Sophia Marie Coquilla to get victimized by professional criminals shielding their activities under the aegis of being minors?
*****************************
The Office of the Ombudsman has recommended the filing of graft and corruption cases against former Department of Education (DepED) Secretary Leonor Briones, former Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Procurement Service Loyd Christopher Lao, and several other officials of the two government agencies.
The cases emanate from the alleged anomalous purchase by the DBM Procurement Service of a huge number of laptops for the DepEd.
With the filing of the cases, it means that the Ombudsman has found enough evidence that indeed anomalies tarnished the more than P2 billion peso transaction.
The purchase transaction was done in 2021, yet months later, this was investigated by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, then headed by former Senator Richard Gordon. The probe was an aside of the more than 40 billion pesos Pharmally deal for the purchase of the alleged overpriced supply for the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
And it is only this week that the Ombudsman has eventually filed the cases against the personalities allegedly involved.
Wow, what a web the Ombudsman probers could have encountered in their investigation. Imagine it took the probe team almost five years. And this is despite what is supposed to be overwhelming evidence of the anomalous processes with which the transaction was done!
What happens to the cliché “justice delayed is justice denied?” Did the Ombudsman really probe the alleged anomalous deal? Or is the act of the office one way for the outgoing Ombudsman to make a “statement?”
Many among us should indeed not be surprised if some of the charges brought before the Ombudsman, and even in regular courts, outlived either the accusers or the accused.
