Burlesque

He was pulled out of the hat like a rabbit.

Except for Leila de Lima, and perhaps Antonio Trillianes, no one else knew Edgar Matobato would be put on deck as “resource person.” All the other senators were denied the opportunity to prepare for the session.

They expressed disappointment over being reduced to mere props in a public hearing orchestrated by de Lima. Such a stunt is unfair for the entire chamber. This is not so much a “public hearing in aid of legislation” as it is plain political burlesque.

The secrecy is puzzling. The only possible for keeping the other senators in the dark is to catch them flatfooted, unable to properly grill a “witness” with an improbable testimony.

Matobato, the surprise witness, is no stranger to de Lima.

He has been under de Lima’s wing for over three years now – initially under the witness protection program and then under some unnamed person’s care in Pangasinan. Notwithstanding, he has not been asked to produce an affidavit containing his allegations.

What, then, was the basis for admitting him into the witness protection program? The basis, it seems in this case, was the mere say-so of the Justice Secretary. During Matobato’s tenure under the witness protection program, therefore at public expense, the Justice Secretary was de Lima herself.

Why didn’t then Justice Secretary de Lima extract an affidavit from her “witness” – if only to justify the hospitality extended him by the agency?

During the campaign period, there was much talk of de Lima holding a self-confessed member of the so-called “Davao Death Squad.” Such talk, we now know, was true.

Why wasn’t Matobato sprung on then candidate Rodrigo Duterte during the campaign period to stop the latter’s inevitable march to the presidency? Only de Lima can answer that question.

Titillating

The “surprise” witness, whose existence some people knew for three years, did not fail to titillate.

The absence of an affidavit notwithstanding, Matobato went from one sordid detail to the next. He spoke of slicing the bodies of victims so they would not float to the surface after the corpses were thrown to the sea. He talked of cutting up victims of summary execution to make identification difficult.

I did not quite understand his story about wrapping some victims in “masking tape” to prevent being identified. All one has to do is to unwrap the face of the corpse to know who the poor soul is.

At any rate, most of his other claims were promptly denied on the same day.

The “surprise” witness claimed he killed four of Prospero Nograles’ bodyguards during the 2010 mayoral contest. Nograles replied that all of his men were accounted for.

Matobato claimed he was asked to murder the dance instructor of Rodrigo Duterte’s sister because he was extorting money. Both the President’s sisters deny anything like that happened.

He claimed he killed a known terrorist named Sali Makdum (or Maktoum?). No one else ever heard of the said character. Sen. Panfilo Lacson immediately Googled the name and found nothing.

The Philippine Army, searching its files, says no one with the unlikely name Matobato appears on their list of Cafgu members. The “witness” could not decide if he was a “ghost employee” of the Davao City Hall or a contractual employee with unseemly credentials. He could not decide if he killed 50 or 1,000 persons.

He missed out on the detail about where Paolo Duterte actually studied, claiming he was a student of Ateneo de Davao. It turns out he studied at Philippine Women’s College in the same city.

At any rate, he claims the killing of a prominent hotel chain owner was at the behest of Paolo. The police, however, say that murder has been solved – the suspect being one aptly named Leonardo Felonia. Harry Roque, who lawyered for the hotelier’s family, flatly denies there was a love-triangle angle in the murder – especially one involving Paolo.

Matobato claims then Mayor Rodrigo Duterte emptied two magazines of his machine pistol at one victim who ended up with 200 bullet wounds. That means the poor guy must have been shot a hundred times before the mayor arrived. Yet, by Matobato’s account, the victim was still alive when the mayor arrived to finish him off.

The “surprise” witness claims that when then CHR chair de Lima investigated Davao in 2009 (not 2002 as stated in the testimony), the bones of victims of summary execution were unearthed. Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre, who lawyered for the owner of the firing range were bones were found, counters that claim, saying the bones unearthed were from the Second World War.

To be sure, Matobato has a story to tell. He is familiar with the personalities associated with the Davao police and with locations where corpses might have been disposed.

But it seems his basic testimony has been embroidered heavily, leading to so many inconsistencies. Who coached him in the art of embroidering testimonies should not be a mystery.

Witnesses

Next week, it will be de Lima’s turn to be at the receiving end of what the Justice Secretary promises will be a string of “explosive” testimonies.

The House of Representatives organized a hearing on drug dealing and payoffs at the National Penitentiary. Justice Secretary Aguirre has lined up 14 witnesses. Among these is a prominent drug lord who claims to have had large sums of money delivered to de Lima’s home.

We will see if these testimonies will be tighter and more consistent than that sloppy one delivered at the Senate.