Romeo V. Pefianco
(Editor’s note: If there’s no smoking-gun evidence courts may resolve a big criminal case in five to 20 years.)
After Neri and Lozada testified before the Senate probers most taxpayers – two million of us – learned for the first time that they were obligated to pay the NBN loan of $ 329 M.
Less useful
The true loan value, the right price of useful facilities, was not $ 329 M, but about $ 130 M less as reported, the latter amount being the alleged overprice to be shared by less than 10 Filipinos, who are as ignorant as most of us of the NBN benefits and package.
It can be said then that two million Filipino taxpayers were not informed properly or partially but shamelessly of the true facts.
Senators of the people
Senators can be called representatives of at least 45 M voters or 49.7 percent of the 90.4 M national population. They have perfect right, duty and obligation to inquire into highly questionable deals to be paid with tax money as in the case of the NBN scandal and the missing fertilizer fund worth P728 M.
These two deals create a total obligation of P14.05 billion, or more than the annual appropriation of one executive line department.
Who are the probers?
Which agencies of the government are fully qualified to initiate/conduct the fastest investigations. At least two bodies can qualify: 1) Congress through the proper committee of the Senate or House, and 2) Courts, especially the Sandiganbayan, after a through investigation by prosecutors.
Some naïve quarters think that only the courts could adequately conduct a complete probe to the exclusion of Congress and its committees.
Slow or fast result?
Have courts and prosecutors come closer to the R728 M fertilizer fund theft, long before or after the culprits sought and found sanctuary to avoid penalty?
If the NBN $ 329 M contract was thoroughly ignored by the Senate who would summon the daring and effrontery, among national and local prosecutors, to "encourage the appearance" of the Comelec chairman, NEDA secretary and the most influential witnesses?
If Sen. Jun Magsaysay had not exposed the R728 M fertilizer fund diversion, who among the DoJ prosecutors would find the guts to question it? Magsaysay took a sick leave after being told that the case of theft of R728 M of tax money was not moving.
The big nonsense
What’s this nonsense like: Let the courts do or decide it.
Courts don’t order parties/prosecutors to start the investigation of any huge fraud or deceit referring to tax money. Without a pending complaint judges won’t issue commands to order the appearance of witnesses.
In fraud cases getting the right documents called "smoking gun" is like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. To this day the Senate probers cannot tell if they have the smoking gun for courts to evaluate or in fact there’s a good case for any criminal court.
If judicial intervention is proper, can the courts return a final verdict of "not guilty or guilty" in two, three or five years?
More than six years of trial
Remember Erap’s plunder case? He was found guilty after more than six years of prosecution and court hearings.
If Erap had appealed the guilty judgment could the case be decided with finality within 10 or 15 years?
Not final after 14 years
Sometimes we read about guilty verdicts handed down in 2007 or 2006 for a crime committed by local officials in 1993 or before. This criminal case has been dragging in a trial court for 14 years and mostly about malversation or graft cases.
Wholly true but….
Years ago a veteran columnist, historian, and lawyer lectured us on Senate investigations. He said most of the evidence presented could be wholly true, but may not stand scrutiny in a criminal court trial.
He added first-hand documents were needed in court to be validated by testimony of high officials whose appearance was subject to a long list of uncertainties.
Unhappiness and anxiety
If the Senate committees could not provide scarce documents it did not mean failure to defend the public interest.
He said that heated exchanges in the open covered by TV, radio and news reporters would expose the high officials to stern verdict by the people and may cause resignations under a cloud.
But the hardest effect of an expose is the extreme shame, anxiety and unhappiness befalling the culprits, their family, children, nearest kin, and cohorts for years. (Comments are welcome at roming@pefianco.com)
|
