Philippine justice at stake

There were two major investigations this past week. At first glance, they were very similar. Both were looking for those involved in systemic corruption in government. Both had a woman, Janet in one case and Arlene in the other, as the principal conduits. Both had senior officials of their respective government bodies as the ultimate beneficiaries. And in both cases, the principal victims were the people of the Philippines.

But the methods of investigation were in stark contrast to each other. And we have a right to ask that the difference in methodology be justified.

The investigation of Janet Lim Napoles and those involved in the PDAF scam was, to a large extent, open to public scrutiny. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee held a public hearing with Napoles and the whistleblowers as the principal figures. The hearing was televised for the whole country to watch.

The principal investigating arm of the executive branch — the Department of Justice and the Commission of Audit — has been required to render regular updates to the Senate. Also, their respective heads, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima and COA head Grace Pulido Tan — have appeared in press conferences and television interviews to inform the public of the progress of the investigation.

By contrast, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the public does not have the right to know what is going on in its own investigations. According to their press release, the proceedings and the deliberations of the committee tasked to investigate the alleged corruption in the judiciary will be “confidential and not open to the public.” The hearings will not be open to the public.

The Supreme Committee has tapped so called “resource persons” to shed light on certain facts relevant to the investigation. This nomenclature sounds like either witnesses or whistleblowers to me. But unlike in the PDAF scam, their names will be withheld from the public.

Why is there such a stark contrast in the manner of investigation? Is it because the leaders of the executive and legislative branches are elected by the people and, therefore, feel they are responsible to the people for their actions? Or is it because the members of the judiciary think they have no public accountability at all?

When Sereno was appointed Chief Justice and Marvic Leonen chosen to head the investigation committee, there was hope that they would usher in a new era in the Philippine judiciary. Perhaps there would now be transparency in contrast to the secrecy in the office of the Court Administrator.  After all, complete transparency is the best protection against abuse of authority.

Again, let us ask the judiciary: If there is nothing to hide, why the insistence on secrecy? Before Leonen became a Supreme Court Justice, I remember him openly expressing his views on television when he was Dean of the UP.College of Law and then head of the Government Peace Panel.

As far as I know, Leonen’s integrity remains unquestioned. However, I hope he will have the courage to stand alone, if necessary, and launch a program that will change the culture in the judiciary that breeds corruption and secrecy. I hope that the Freedom of Information law will include the judiciary.

In contrast, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee was wide open to public scrutiny. Obviously, some senators were grandstanding and there were moments when the whole event seemed like a circus. But that is the hallmark of democracy. It may be messy but there is no better system of government that has been invented.

And democracy’s foundations are the different freedoms including the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. These two freedoms stem from the belief that all officials are accountable to the people. And more than that, the people have a right to information so they can truly exercise their freedoms.

This is where I must give credit to Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago. She has been criticized for her seemingly abrasive speaking style. But her courage to openly and publicly speak out her views can, at times, be refreshing.

For example, during the entire Napoles Senate hearing, the most interesting part, for me, was the press conference of Senator Santiago. I also thought it was quite remarkable that she chose to speak so candidly in a press conference and not during a Senate hearing where she had the protection of immunity.

For the few who do not remember, during the press conference after the hearing, Senator Santiago openly said that Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was the godfather of the multibillion peso pork barrel scam.

In her words: “His [Enrile] paternity is unquestionable. His [Enrile] DNA has been confirmed.”

Napoles’ testimony, or lack of it, is sufficient for most people to now confirm their belief that she is guilty. But, I have always believed that she could not have conceived and managed such a massive scheme by herself.

According to Senator Santiago, Enrile was the logical godfather because he was the Senate President at that time. Perhaps another relevant fact is that during Enrile’s term as Senate President, his two principal officers were Jinggoy Estrada as Senate President Pro Tempore and Vicente Sotto as Majority Floor Leader.  Both have been implicated in the pork barrel scam.

If Honasan, Marcos and Revilla are also closely linked to these three senators, then the term HERMES Gang — Honasan, Enrile, Revilla, Marcos, Estrada , Sotto — may be more than just an acronym.

While Janet Lim Napoles is as guilty as many people believe, she is not the most guilty. In order to avoid a tragedy and a travesty of justice, the godfather and the other pork barrel scam beneficiaries — lawmakers, chiefs of staff, government officials — whoever they are, should all end up behind bars.

With the entire nation watching, our justice system is once again also under trial. The poorest of our poor, the true victims of this scam, have the most to lose or gain from this entire investigation. Their faith in the true essence of justice and democracy hangs in the balance.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]