|
Except
for a mumbling aside from neophyte Sen. Jamby Madrigal,
Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile and his colleagues at the Senate
Finance Committee which conducted an inquiry into Sen.
Ping Lacson’s headline-grabbing allegation that Senate
President Manny Villar made an improper insertion of
P200 million in the 2008 budget to construct some
sections of the C-5 Extension found no evidence of
wrongdoing in the so-called double entry.
Here’s
what Enrile said: “Link him [Villar] with what? Maybe
the most you can say is that he did not make any
disclosure of his financial interests, if any, in the
area where the road would pass. But that C-5 project is
not a project of Villar; it’s the project of the
government. And the only reason Villar became the
subject of the charges made by the opposition was that,
first, he proposed an amendment for a certain portion of
the project, and, second, because he has properties
along the way. I do not know when these lands were
acquired and who owned them, whether before the C-5 was
conceived or after or while it was being implemented.
There is no iota of evidence that there is an intent to
defraud the government.”
Asked
whether despite this initial finding the committee will
proceed to gather more information to determine if any
irregularity such as “conflict of interest” may have
been committed, Enrile dismissed the same, saying they
are not in the business of fishing for evidence.
He
challenged Villar’s critics to submit evidence, saying:
“He who alleges has the burden of proof. You make an
allegation, you have to prove it.”
That
challenge, of course, will be taken up by Lacson and his
co-accuser Senator Madrigal, who have decided to shift
their venue from Enrile’s committee to the Ethics
Committee and, as their drumbeaters trumpeted, maybe all
the way to the Ombudsman.
In that
event, the focus will then be whether Villar and his
family violated any provisions of law from whatever
funding for the C-5 Extension project which he may have
been proposed. But even that, as Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago,
another Finance Committee member, emphasized, may be a
stretch.
Santiago
lectured: “[For] all intents and purposes, the case was
already pronounced dead during the public hearing,
noting that. . . there are many standards applicable to
a case where a person [in this case Villar] is charged
with misconduct, in general. . . .”
In a
criminal case, the standard is very high, which is proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Definitely, there is no such
proof here. In civil cases and even in the ethics case,
the standard is clear and convincing evidence. Again,
there is no clear and convincing evidence that Senator
Villar stood to gain personally in a financial way from
the double entry.
What we
have is the fact that there are two entries and the
Budget secretary said he will not release the amount so
there is no harm to the public interest. “Just because a
legislator made an amendment on the floor and not during
the secret bicameral meetings does not necessarily mean
that he should be made to account for the entry in the
budget. . . that is done by technical personnel. . . .”
So
there. For purposes of this screaming Lacson/Madrigal
assault on Villar, the verdict is clear—no probable
cause.
But the
damage has been done on Villar’s standing as a public
official and as a topnotch businessman. For no matter
what explanations will now issue, including those by his
own Senate peers, cynicism will creep in about his acts
from the time he was elected into office up to now.
Worse,
even the slightest business decisions he made before
then and those made by persons or groups associated with
his family’s business empire will now be the object of
intense scrutiny.
But such
is par for the course and Villar should be prepared to
take those blows. In fact, if they know what is good for
them and the “Sipag at Tiyaga” platform they are
foisting on our people, then this attack can actually be
used to promote their “peace and prosperity” plan for
the Filipino future.
But they
should be on their toes, show their resolve and their
capacity to stand by their record and their will to
fight for what they believe in. Which is why we have
been wondering why it took some time for Villar and his
advocates to mount a countercampaign to clear things.
And, if
they believe, as they are now saying, that this assault
was more of a political play than the “truth and
accountability” campaign the Lacson group wanted the
public to believe then they should charge full speed
ahead with guns blazing and nail their critics down.
Now, not later.
Similarly, Paguia’s plaint
Which
brings us to another matter involving timeliness, not
just correctness of actions and reactions, especially of
public figures.
Some
days back former President Estrada’s lawyer and Ateneo
law professor Allan Paguia wrote the Supreme Court to
bring to the High Tribunal’s attention the need to apply
the law “without fear or favor.”
He
referred, in particular, to the seeming misapplication,
if not questionable nonapplication, of Canon 13 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers on all
the non-Court of Appeals (CA) lawyers who figured in the
controversial Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)
v. Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) case before the CA.
In his
letter, Paguia noted that the Supreme Court castigated
Presidential Commission on Good Government Chairman
Camilo Sabio for “acts to influence the judgment of a
member of the Judiciary in a pending case,” and referred
his case to the Bar Confidant for action which, in legal
parlance, means the process of disbarment. (Camilo Sabio
is a brother of CA Justice Jose Sabio Jr.)
In its
ruling, the SC noted that Sabio called up his brother
from Davao to advise the “rightness” of the GSIS cause
in behalf of a GSIS trustee who later turned out to be
Atty. Jesus Santos, who happens to be chairing the
recognized organization of public-sector employees Cogeo.
Justice
Sabio claimed he told his brother he will vote in
accordance with his conscience and thought that was the
end of the story. It is now turning out to be more
complicated than that.
Well,
the High Tribunal said Camilo’s conduct constituted a
violation of Canon 13, which states that, “A lawyer
shall . . . refrain from any impropriety which tends to
influence or gives the appearance of influencing the
Court.”
Paguia
advised the Court that if Camilo’s conduct was
“improper,” then the more should Santos’s conduct as the
“instigator” of the call be considered as such. That
being so, he pleaded that Santos’s case be referred to
the Bar Confidant, as well.
And, as
he mentioned, if the acts of both Sabio and Santos are
considered violative of Canon 13, then similar acts of
“influencing or attempting to influence the Court”
should be looked into, as well, in the case of GSIS
lawyers Star Elamparo and Orlando Polinar.
It
appears that Elamparo and Polinar, in an earlier
occasion, went to the chambers of now-sacked justice
Vicente Roxas purportedly just to say hello but, in the
view of court insiders and, of course, Paguia himself,
was akin to, if not even more indicative of, the
prohibited acts under Canon 13. So, the sauce for the
goose should be the sauce for the gander, or so Paguia
noted.
Of
course, as Justice Sabio said, he was just being
transparent in advising one and all about his brother’s
act and was just in keeping with “Filipino culture.”
But the
High Tribunal rejected that assertion and proceeded to
have Chairman Sabio’s act looked into.
Such
being the case, then we agree with Paguia, that indeed,
there should be a similar advisory to the Bar Confidant
on the part of Santos, Elamparo and Polinar if only to
erase whatever suspicion there may be that they are unto
a class of their own. That should not and cannot be the
norm if the Supreme Court sticks to the spirit and
letter of the law. Sana nga. (It is hoped.) |
