This from today’s Inquirer, (bold emphasis mine)
The decision of the Supreme Court clearing Hubert Webb and six others of criminal liability in the 1991 Vizconde massacre is not a vindication of them, the tribunal’s spokesperson said Wednesday.
Speaking at a news briefing, Midas Marquez said the acquittal of Webb et al. did not mean they were innocent of the charges. He said the high court voted 7-4 to acquit them because of the prosecution’s failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and because of infirmities in the testimony of star witness Jessica Alfaro.
“The court said there was not enough basis to [affirm] the conviction of the accused. The court did not say they are not guilty,” Marquez stressed.
“The magistrates did not say that they were innocent and that they did not commit the crime,” he said.
In short, technical issues or legal loopholes prevailed.
Yet in looking at how laws should be complied with, we found this from wikipedia.org
The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not adhering to the literal wording.
"Law" originally referred to legislative statute, but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule. Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language. Following the letter of the law but not the spirit is also a tactic used by oppressive governments. (bold emphasis on this paragraph mine)
Bottom line: as we previously argued, arbitrary laws and regulations, as well as, arbitrary interpretation of laws signify as symptoms of a much deeper structural malaise known crony capitalism or legal protectionism of the political economic elite.
