GOVERNMENT lawyers disclosed they would no longer present Mariano Tanenglian as a state witness against his brother, beverage and tobacco magnate Lucio Tan, after talks over his requested immunity bogged down over the weekend.
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) reached the decision after officials of the agencies and Tanenglian’s camp reportedly failed to agree on the terms and conditions of the requested immunity.
Earlier, the PCGG leadership accepted “in principle” Tanenglian’s request for civil and criminal immunity for himself, his family and his properties in exchange for his testimony against his brother. The PCGG’s acceptance of Tanenglian’s offer to be a government witness, however, was contingent on the latter’s submission of a formal immunity agreement and the agency’s approval of its provisions.
For the past six months, PCGG and OSG representatives have been meeting with Tanenglian and his lawyers to discuss the proposed testimony and the terms and conditions of the immunity agreement. Despite protracted negotiations, no agreement was reached regarding the conditions for the immunity requested by Tanenglian.
In particular, the PCGG and the OSG required Tanenglian to disclose the nature and extent of funds and properties he wants to exclude from the government’s claim in Civil Case 0005 in exchange for his testimony.
However, Tanenglian was reportedly lukewarm to the idea, even as government representatives proposed in the alternative that the requested immunity should cover only funds and properties owned by Tanenglian as of a fixed cut-off date, such as the date of the filing of the original PCGG complaint in 1987. Assets acquired thereafter are excluded.
PCGG officials said this condition was meant to prevent the use of the immunity agreement as a shield to protect ill-gotten properties transferred or acquired by Tanenglian after the cut-off date. Further, government lawyers proposed a “good faith clause” in the agreement, where parties would express a general commitment that the immunity agreement would not be used to facilitate fraud or shield ill-gotten properties from the government’s lawful claims.
A PCGG source also intimated that another contentious issue was Tanenglian’s alleged insistence to include in the immunity agreement a criminal case filed against him and his family by two female househelp before the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City.
The two claimed they were abused inside the Tanenglian household for years. One was able to escape, while the other was rescued by policemen and agents of the Commission on Human Rights last year.
According to the same source, government negotiators faced a serious dilemma since Tanenglian’s criminal indictment for alleged maltreatment and abuse was totally unrelated to the ill-gotten wealth case being pursued by the government. They were particularly concerned of the backlash and public outcry if the poor househelp were denied justice should Tanenglian and family be granted blanket immunity from suit.
While PCGG and OSG negotiators insist that the conditions for immunity are reasonable and important to protect government’s interests, they were unacceptable to Tanenglian. As negotiations bogged down, Tanenglian would no longer testify as a state witness and will remain subject to criminal investigation and prosecution as one of the defendants in Civil Case 0005.
With no more star witness, the PCGG and the OSG said they will present other witnesses and evidence to support the government’s claim.
It will be recalled that despite objections from the defense, the Sandiganbayan’s Third Division only allowed the reopening of government’s presentation of evidence upon the representation of the PCGG and the OSG that they can get Tanenglian to testify against his estranged brother.
