Legal action needed!

“We need to bring sanity and objectivity into the crusade against corruption… lawmakers must make sure that their hearings on graft result not in character assassination against political opponents, but legal action based on evidence and reform legislation to prevent irregularities in the future.”

Legal action needed!

By: Rick Saludo

When Congress conducts its next hearing in aid of demolition, it should hire The Lightman Group or rather a real-life equivalent of the fictional outfit featured in the TV series Lie to Me. In it Dr. Cal Lightman, played by Tim Roth (Incredible Hulk, 2008), and his team of experts in psychology and micro-expressions pick out liars in police interrogations and business meetings.

Media, too, could use such services before they rush to headline unsubstantiated accusations and insinuations. In recent weeks, two banner stories on alleged corruption in the military were disavowed the very next day by quoted accusers Col. George Rabusa and Sen. Antonio Trillanes. The top daily that published them should run a disclaimer warning that its headlines may be hazardous to the truth.

In fact, simple common sense and diligent journalism should be enough to catch most dodgy claims. Asked to produce proof, most accusers would become circumspect. Then the public is spared the unwarranted destruction of personal reputations and the undermining of national institutions on the basis of unsubstantiated assertions headlined by publications and programs that put newsstand sales and ratings above the undistorted truth.

Sadly, media, politicians and public often don’t care to let the facts get in the way of sensational stories.

Last week that cavalier attitude toward public accusations triggered tragedy with the death of of Angelo Reyes. The former Defense Secretary and AFP chief went from resource person to surprise accused at a Senate hearing supposedly on the plea bargain agreed by accused plunderer Gen. Carlos Garcia and the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB).

With Reyes’s demise, there is a bit of introspection in Congress on rules for hearings as well as the conduct of legislators. Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile rightly admonished Sen. Trillanes to produce evidence supporting any accusations he makes. Other senators agreed that civility should be restored in their deliberations, even those who were guilty of such excesses in the past. At least for this week, the baseless accusers are kept at bay.

But not for long, it seems. From a senator who is usually careful about his statements came a sweeping accusation against the Commission on Audit (COA) checking government finances. Sen. Francis Escudero was quoted by ABSCBNNews.com yesterday: “Karamihan ng problema ng corruption sa bansa, ang puno nasa COA. Kaya nga parating may porsyento ang COA. Every time that an issue of corruption crops up, we always find out that COA has 1percent to 2 percent.”

Let’s go over those quoted remarks sentence by sentence.

Most corruption problems have their root in COA, which always gets a percentage presumably of the anomaly allowed?

Every time corruption emerges, it always turns out that COA has 1 percent to 2 percent?

These superlatives were apparently based on Col. Rabusa’s allegation of payoffs to two COA officials, and former auditor Heidi Mendoza’s misgivings about the Commission Chairman during her time. Does Sen. Escudero include in his tally of COA-abetted graft the hundreds of billions of pesos in tax evasion and smuggling every year, which, in fact, the Commission does not audit? Oh, and would Senate President Enrile ask Chiz to present the basis for his accusations? Or would that demand for proof have to wait until a COA official commits suicide?

One wonders how legislators would take a similarly sweeping generalization like: Members of Congress are behind much corruption in the country. They get kickbacks from pork barrel spending not subject to stringent auditing. At their behest, their minions are appointed to government positions, where the appointees pile up corruption gains, most of which go to their patrons. And they lobby for government projects and concessions, for which they get big commissions from companies.

Legislators would be justified in protesting that such accusations are untrue, unfair and unfounded. They would be right to demand proof and to complain that the alleged graft of a few should not be extrapolated to tar everyone in Congress. And yet in hearing after hearing not only in recent weeks, but in the past several years, both lawmakers and media have been quick to impute wholesale graft on a whiff of sleaze.

We need to bring sanity and objectivity into the crusade against corruption. Yes, let us expose and punish anomalies, but always with evidence and due process, including the presumption of innocence.

Sure, give witnesses parliamentary immunity, but let their unproven testimonies be given in executive session, where reputations of both individuals and institutions are protected from unfounded attacks by accusers protected from libel penalties designed to deter untruths.

Most of all, lawmakers must make sure that their hearings on graft result not in character assassination against political opponents, but legal action based on evidence and reform legislation to prevent irregularities in the future. That may not generate many sensational headlines, but it will contribute far more toward real change.