The current debate over how congressional inquiries should be conducted erupted following the suicide of the late Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) chief of staff Gen.Angelo Reyes last Tuesday. Whatever drove Reyes to shoot himself dead by a single bullet in his heart was something a highly decorated soldier brought with him to his grave.
Reyes was brought to his final resting place yesterday at the Libingan ng mga Bayani along with the heartaches he suffered from the trial by publicity he went through at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. Reyes was supposedly invited as one of the resource persons in the Senate inquiry into the plea bargaining agreement of ex-AFP comptroller, former Maj.Gen.Carlos Garcia.
Reyes was made to face at the Senate public hearing a surprise witness. A self-confessed embezzler of military funds, his former AFP budget officer, retired Col.George Rabusa showed up. The inquiry into the questioned plea bargaining agreement of Garcia turned into a fishing expedition that intended to catch Reyes as the big fish in the AFP fund mess.
Taking off from Rabusa’s exposé, newly freed from military detention and an amnesty grantee of P-Noy, Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV pounced on Reyes. While he was given due process during his military and civilian court trials, Trillanes deprived Reyes of the same fair treatment. During that live televised Senate hearing, Trillanes viciously cut Reyes down and prejudged him before the bar of public opinion.
Until his suicide, no specific charges were filed against Reyes. The bitter end of this tele-drama triggered a debate even among lawmakers on whether to conduct their hearings in executive or closed-door sessions.
To ferret out the truth, our lawmakers, of course, could get away with ruthless questions, or witless, if you will. But certainly, they should not be so heartless if their endgame is to score brownie points for themselves before the audience.
The leaders and members of the 15th Congress owe it to the Filipino people to behave and conduct themselves worthy of their office as elected officials of the land.
Veteran lawmaker, Sen.Joker Arroyo initiated already last week moves to correct the internal rules of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to check against these abuses and violations of human rights of people summoned to their public hearings.
A simple common sense would suffice, if only, our Senators and Congressmen would care to listen more to others and not to impose to others to listen to them.
For the past two weeks of the Senate and House hearings on the controversial plea bargaining agreement struck by Garcia with government prosecutors, we have seen and heard many of our lawmakers asked the same questions over and over again.
Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, who was invited on both hearings, however, had only been consistent answers to the same questions. Gutierrez repeatedly told the Senators and Congress that she had no choice but to enter into a plea bargain agreement to ensure the government would be able to prosecute Garcia despite a shocking shortage of solid evidence.
When she took office in December, 2005, Gutierrez inherited from her immediate predecessor, former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo a huge pile of big and controversial graft cases, one of which included this highly celebrated plunder case of Garcia. A few months before he stepped down as Ombudsman, Marcelo filed the plunder case against Garcia before at the Sandiganbayan. But obviously a product of shoddy legwork, Gutierrez has reaped its consequence.
Under sharp questioning by Senate president Juan Ponce Enrile, Marcelo insisted that they had a strong case against the accused ex-AFP comptroller. On the basis alone of a letter written by the General’s wife, Clarita Garcia on her revelation of sources of their income, Marcelo cited a legal precedent, the Maqueda ruling by the Supreme Court. In this case, the SC ruled that the declarant did not have to take the witness stand and allowed the one who heard it to testify in court that he heard the accused admit the commission of the crime.
Marcelo believed then and up to now that this letter was enough to pin down Garcia. As originally planned, they would ask an agent of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) testify as to the content of Garcia wife’s letter submitted to US agents that sought to explain the source of cash her sons brought with them in US.
Unfortunately, Marcelo’s plan did not fly with Enrile who pointed out that it’s hinged on the long shot that there would be no need to present Clarita before the court. Under court rules, with few exceptions, a spouse (such as Clarita) is generally not allowed to testify against another spouse (Carlos).
A legal eagle himself, Enrile argued the court could rule that the Maqueda case will not apply in Garcia’s case because it will be circumventing the prohibition of the Rules of Evidence of spouses testifying against the spouse.
At this juncture, Enrile questioned the seeming undue haste in Marcelo’s filing case even as the investigation the Ombudsman asked from the Commission on Audit (COA), represented by Heidi Mendoza, was still incomplete at that time.
But what was more shocking revelation in both public hearings, Gutierrez swore under oath the supposed audit report made by Mendoza was not available to them when she took over as Ombudsman. Neither, she noted, Mendoza’s name was included as witness in Garcia’s case.
Grudgingly, Gutierrez acquiesced to endorse a recommendation by Congress to withdraw from the Sandiganbayan the plea bargaining agreement with Garcia given the “newly discovered evidence” as testified to by Mendoza and Rabusa before both Senate and House probe panels. Now, it’s up to the Sandiganbayan to rule on this recommendation by Ombudsman Gutierrez.
Like the wheels of justice that grinds slowly, the truth takes time to come out before the light of day, if not suppressed or twisted by those in power.