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.

Class 79 to punish TRILLANES

Dona Victorina condemns Senators Antonio Trillanes for his shabby treatment of Gen Reyes during the Senate hearings into the alleged corruption in the military… The superintendent of the PMA, Vice Admiral Leoanrdo Calderon, also described Trillanes behavior as “UNCAVALIER,” in violation of the PMA code on how to treat senior officers. The Manila Times also reports that:

Class 79 to punish TRILLANES

“Sen. Antonio Trillanes 4th, a member of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) Class of 1979, faces punishment from his fellow PMA graduates for humiliating a senior officer—late former Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff Angelo “Angie” Reyes—during a recent Senate inquiry.

“Even some of his [Trillanes] classmates did not like what he did to Angie Reyes,” they will go with punishing the senator, another former military chief of staff—Gen. Dionisio Santiago—told editors and reporters of The Manila Times during an exclusive roundtable on Monday.
It was not clear, though, what the punishment would be.

According to Santiago, many of the cavaliers or PMA alumni would shy away from Trillanes as a sign of protest to the alleged arrogance he displayed against Reyes, a member of PMA Class of 1966, when the former Armed Forces chief appeared on January 27 before the Senate blue ribbon committee.

It was during the same Senate inquiry that retired Lt. Col. George Rabusa, a former military budget officer, disclosed that Reyes got P50 million in “pabaon” or send-off money when he retired on March 2001 besides the P5 million in monthly payola while serving as military chief of staff.

Twelve days after he was implicated in the alleged corruption in the Armed Forces, Reyes, apparently unable to bear the stigma and the damage inflicted on his integrity after he was linked to wrongdoing in the Armed Forces, was reported to have taken his own life right in front of the graves of his parents at Loyola Memorial Park in Marikina City (Metro Manila).
During the Senate hearing, Reyes asked the chairman of the committee that he be allowed pose questions at his accuser because his reputation was at stake.

But Trillanes interrupted, saying, “No, no, no, you don’t have any reputation to protect,” and telling Reyes to get a good lawyer instead.

Many senior PMA graduates detested Trillanes demeanor against a fellow cavalier.
Another former Armed Forces chief of staff, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, has described Trillanes as arrogant, saying, “Masyadong mayabang ang batang ito [This young man is arrogant].”
Retired Maj. Gen. Leopoldo Maligalig expressed belief that the humiliation inflicted by Trillanes on Reyes might have pushed the latter to the edge.

The superintendent of the PMA, Vice Admiral Leoanrdo Calderon, also described Trillanes behavior as “uncavalier,” in violation of the PMA code on how to treat senior officers.
“Our core values in the PMA are integrity and loyalty. We also teach them [cadets] honor and respect. My comment is that definitely, this is very uncavalier-like. As an alumnus, I am grieved that a junior officer would say that to a senior officer and a very honorable man,” Calderon said of Reyes during an ABS-CBN Umagang Kay Ganda interview.

Despite the criticisms, Trillanes also on Monday said that he did not regret what he did to Reyes.
“I’m the kind of person who doesn’t regret anything in life because that’s the only key where I can move on, but I do learn lessons in life. Negative experiences can bring out lessons and I learn from that. Looking back, that’s how destiny played for us. That encounter, no matter how unfortunate it looks now in hindsight, there’s no going around it anymore. We just have to live with that,” Trillanes told ANC.” BY william desupil

Self-righteous lawmakers killed Reyes…

"Of course, Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Antonio Trillanes, Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez and all the other people who piled on Reyes can say that it was the ex-defense chief who aimed the gun to his chest and pulled the trigger…
And so we must ask this question of the self-righteous and self-important lawmakers (and all self-righteous and self-important people everywhere) who drove Reyes to his death and cheered it when it actually happened: Are you happy now? …
Reyes may be guilty as charged or entirely innocent. We’ll never really know. "

Self-righteous lawmakers killed Reyes…

Columnist Jojo Robles opines that “if there is anything we can learn from the suicide of former Armed Forces chief and Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes, it is this: Some people value their reputations above everything else, and they will go to any extreme if they feel that their honor has been unjustly ruined forever.

And so we must ask this question of the self-righteous and self-important lawmakers (and all self-righteous and self-important people everywhere) who drove Reyes to his death and cheered it when it actually happened: Are you happy now?

Sure, nearly everyone who has a Facebook account has weighed in on the matter of Reyes’ suicide. And many of them seem perfectly willing to proclaim that the former defense chief was guilty as charged and must now be burning in hell.

But that would be assuming that Reyes was indeed guilty—and, furthermore, that he is the only one guilty in an institution that now seems rotten to the very core. And that is an assumption that not even Reyes’ tormentors in Congress will be able to make with any degree of confidence.

Of course, Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Antonio Trillanes, Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez and all the other people who piled on Reyes can say that it was the ex-defense chief who aimed the gun to his chest and pulled the trigger. If he could not stand the heat, what the hell was he doing in the kitchen anyway?

But to say that none of them helped kill Reyes is to pretend that the suicide happened in a vacuum, as if he took drugs or was insane. And we certainly know that this was not the case.

Indeed, we can imagine anyone who feels he or she has been unfairly pilloried in the Senate or the House during these chambers’ many investigations must have felt that suicide was a viable option. And any honest appraisal of the inherent unfairness and ultimate worthlessness (as far as ferreting out guilt or crafting laws) of our congressional investigations would certainly make us want to sympathize with them.

A Senate or House probe, after all, is never like an actual court of law, where even people like Andal Ampatuan, pere et fils, can expect a modicum of fairness and a presumption of guilt before it is clearly and incontrovertibly established. In nearly all cases, such investigations have long been decided before the first hearing is even scheduled, by lawmakers who have axes to grind against the people they intend to summon, humiliate and eventually destroy.

But Congress does this all the time, it can be argued. And Reyes could have toughed it out like everyone else given the same treatment, knowing full well that while his honor and reputation may be dragged through the mud, he will eventually get out of the Senate or the House in one piece and on his own power.

But that is precisely why Angelo Reyes, whose guilt or innocence was never established (because the pursuit of either was never really the goal), is different. He simply decided, rightly or wrongly, that he had enough and that he saw no other end to the suffering and pain but to end his own life.

Reyes may be guilty as charged or entirely innocent. We’ll never really know.
We can only hope that the people who cannot hide their happiness over Angelo Reyes’ death can say to themselves that they value their reputations as much as he did. And that, even if they were somewhere else far away, they didn’t have anything to do with pushing him over the edge.”

Dealing with Amnesia

Columnist Efren Danao writes about how Senators deal with the “forgetfulness” of their respective “resource speakers”…

He writes: “Senator Jinggoy was so exasperated with the testimony of Ligot that he once called the retired military officer “General Limot.” He immediately corrected himself, however, and pronounced the correct family name “Ligot.””

Dealing with Amnesia

Two witnesses of the Senate blue-ribbon committee are not suffering from Alzeihmer’s disease but why are they often forgetful? Could it be because retired M/Gen. Carlos Garcia and retired Lt./Gen Jacinto Ligot are both former comptroller of the Armed Forces of the Philippines? Why, whistleblower George Rabusa, former AFP budget officer, exhibited better memory than them, and he had just suffered from a stroke!

Between Garcia and Ligot, the latter is the more forgetful. Why, Ligot could not even remember how much was his salary when he was AFP comptroller! When Rabusa, spoke about the anomalies in the liquidation of United Nations peacekeeping fund for East Timor by J-6, Ligot said he could not remember these things.

Ligot also said he was not familiar with some names mentioned by Sen. TG Guingona, blue ribbon chairman, as allegedly connected to a forfeiture case filed by the Ombudsman against him. When Guingona reminded Ligot that he was under oath, Ligot suddenly remembered that one was a cousin of his wife and that he knew the two others.

Senate President Pro-Tempore Jinggoy Estrada showed records from the Bureau of Immigration showing that Ligot’s wife, Erlinda Yambao Ligot, travelled 42 times to the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong and Brunei from 1993 to 2004. Well, what do you know! Ligot said he was not aware that his wife had traveled abroad 42 times and that there were times when he did not know that his wife was abroad.

Jinggoy was far from convinced. “Forty-two times umalis ang misis niyo, hindi niyo alam? Kung mga alagang aso’t pusa nga natin, pag nawawala, hinahanap natin!” he said.
Jinggoy also could go nowhere with Ligot on the issue of two US properties titled in the name of Mrs. Erlinda Yambao Ligot. The two properties, both in California, were paid for in cash. One was for $504,000 and the other, $183,868. Ligot said he was surprised when he heard of the two properties being mentioned in the forfeiture case filed by the Office of the Ombudsman.

Ligot said he was not sure but he thought he asked her about this and that he could not remember her reply. He then said that upon advice of his lawyer, he would invoke his right against self-incrimination.

Jinggoy was so exasperated with the testimony of Ligot that he once called the retired military officer “General Limot.” He immediately corrected himself, however, and pronounced the correct family name “Ligot.”

It became apparent that Guingona had already associated forgetfulness with General Limot, I mean General Ligot. Last Monday, when Garcia said he could not remember the thing mentioned by Rabusa, Guingona interjected: “No, no, no. You can’t say that. That is the line of General Ligot!”

Questioning Jinggoy!

“Now, I am not questioning the motive of Senate President Pro-tempore Jinggoy Estrada in bringing in Rabusa as witness. Rabusa’s testimony proved damning to the public against former AFP chief, Secretary Angelo Reyes, whose switching of allegiance in January 2001 led to the downfall of then Prez Erap Estrada, Jinggoy’s father… He or other probers could take the cue from the mode of questioning usually employed by Sen. Joker Arroyo, or Sen. Gringo Honasan or Sen. Kiko Pangilinan. They seldom raise their voices, their language could be cutting even if shorn of venom. And what’s more, they extract the needed information.”

QUESTIONING JiNgGoY!

The Senate blue ribbon committee hit pay dirt in its anti-graft and corruption drive with the testimony of retired Col. George Rabusa, former AFP budget officer, on the allegedly “welcome” and “pabaon [sendoff]” gifts for incoming and retiring AFP chiefs of staff. I hope it will not fritter away this golden opportunity to curb corruption in the military by giving the impression that some of its members are out for vendetta or “pogi points” with the press.

Personalities should not intrude into this noteworthy inquiry or else, its findings would be suspect. Now, I am not questioning the motive of Senate President Pro-tempore Jinggoy Estrada in bringing in Rabusa as witness. Rabusa’s testimony proved damning to the public against former AFP chief, Secretary Angelo Reyes, whose switching of allegiance in January 2001 led to the downfall of then Prez Erap Estrada, Jinggoy’s father. But even if Jinggoy is not out for vendetta, he should have at least referred Rabusa to another senator so there would be no color to Rabusa’s testimony.

I like the attitude of Jinggoy toward fugitive Sen. Ping Lacson much better. Whenever media sought his comments on Ping, Jinggoy would give a guarded comment, and for good reason. When Ping was linked to the murder of publicist Bubby Dacer, he delivered a privileged speech claiming that Erap knew more about the supposed operation against Dacer. This led to the cooling of relations between the Estradas and Ping. It was also for this reason that Jinggoy is almost always hesitant in answering questions about Ping who is still on the lam. He explains that his comments might be held suspect because of his relations with Ping.

Of course, it is not yet too late for Jinggoy to stop coming in strong against Reyes. He, as well as other members of the blue ribbon, can ferret out the truth without subjecting Reyes or other former AFP chiefs of staff to humiliation or ridicule. He or other probers could take the cue from the mode of questioning usually employed by Sen. Joker Arroyo, or Sen. Gringo Honasan or Sen. Kiko Pangilinan. They seldom raise their voices, their language could be cutting even if shorn of venom. And what’s more, they extract the needed information.

Perhaps, asking senators to keep personalities off the “pabaon” scandal might be too much. I note that Secretary Reyes has chosen lawyer Bonifacio Alentajan as his counsel. Well, if both Alentajan and Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago will attend the hearing tomorrow, Thursday, expect all hell to break loose. Senator Miriam is one who can never forget a perceived offense against her and she is still smarting from the disbarment case he had filed against her, citing among other things her mental health. That disbarment case has been thrown out by the High Tribunal but the very mention of Alentajan’s name still sends her temperature and blood pressure soaring.

Going back to the “pabaon” issue, I was struck by the comment of Rabusa in an ANC interview that Mrs. Reyes had asked him not to tell her husband about the amounts given her in her foreign travels “as this would anger him.” What does this say of Angelo Reyes in relation to the giving of perks to his wife? (By Efren Danao)