Public Lives

Napoles as state’s witness


The correct term is “state’s witness,” says Dr. Sylvia Ventura, my professor in English at the University of the Philippines. To turn “state’s witness” is for a suspect, an accused, or a convicted person to give testimony against his or her accomplices or associates in a crime in exchange for immunity from prosecution, or reduced penalty, or pardon. In the United States, this legal maneuver was effectively used in the trial of leaders of organized crime syndicates, where potential witnesses were often too scared to testify.

Lawyers tell us that this option is usually not offered to those who appear to be the guiltiest among those implicated in the same criminal offense. Many are thus outraged over the thought that the government may be cutting a deal with Janet Lim-Napoles, the alleged mastermind of the massive illegal diversion of pork barrel funds to private pockets.

What seems to have induced this suspicion is the manner in which Napoles’ surrender and subsequent detention were managed by the Office of the President. From being classified as a fugitive with a P10-million bounty on her head, Napoles quickly metamorphosed into a VIP who was permitted to surrender to no less than the President at his official residence.

I myself did not put any malice to P-Noy’s decision to personally accept Napoles’ surrender and escort her to jail. It was a judgment call on his part, and I can understand why he did it.  I view it in the context of reliable information that Napoles, out of a genuine fear for her life, had been desperately looking for a trustworthy public figure who could arrange for her safe surrender. I can imagine why anyone, other than the President, would be reluctant to play this role. As the Inquirer editorial put it the other day, Napoles is “radioactive”—if you are not a police officer or a bounty hunter or an assassin on assignment, you would be well advised to distance yourself from her.

As it turned out, even P-Noy was unable to fully insulate himself from the radioactive fallout resulting from Napoles’ surrender at Malacanang. This, to me, signifies an interesting shift in the public’s relationship to the President. The implicit trust previously conferred on him as a crusading leader against corruption is giving way to a more guarded and exacting attitude toward his government. I am almost certain that this change in public perception resulted from his speaking too soon about the positive uses of the Priority Development Assistance Fund.

Today, not a few people are wondering if Napoles, who will be transferred from the Makati City Jail to a more secure detention facility under the PNP Special Action Force in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, is being groomed to become a state’s witness. I don’t mind if she becomes one. It all depends on what she is prepared to confess. The government has shown good will by securing her against those who might be thinking of silencing her. It is now up to her to reciprocate this by abandoning her previous stance of flatly denying everything, and instead offer a detailed account of what she knows—even if it means implicating almost the whole of Philippine officialdom.

I think it would be cathartic, and ultimately healing, for the nation to listen to her confession on how she connived with public officials in various branches of government to steal billions in taxpayers’ money over a period of at least 10 years. I assume that she will claim there was someone above her from whom she took orders, someone who wielded a lot of influence and made it easy for the legislators to entrust their pork barrel to her. I think that is not an implausible scenario.

At the end of her unrehearsed appearance at the Inquirer editorial offices a few weeks ago, she took me and fellow columnist Winnie Monsod aside, insisting she was not the mastermind and intimating that the real brains had already hurriedly fled the country. When we asked who this person was, Napoles whispered something to Winnie, but not to me. To this day I’m still wondering who this big fish might be, if there was any.

There may or may not be a real mastermind, but, until the evidence is all in, can we really say Napoles is the most guilty? Certainly, compared to the members of her staff who have turned whistle-blowers, she seems to be the guiltiest. But, whether or not there was a mastermind above Napoles, the fact that the pork barrel funds in question could not have been released without the consent and knowledge of senators and congressmen must give us pause about allocating guilt so quickly.

There was betrayal of public trust here. It was not to Napoles, a private individual, that we gave this trust. It was to our public officials that we did—the lawmakers who cornered lump sum allocations and the heads of agencies who were supposed to oversee the implementation and auditing of PDAF-funded projects. Is the fixer guiltier than the trustees of the funds who stole the money or willfully looked the other way while others did?

I’d prefer to see corrupt senators and congressmen locked up in jail than the clever “porksmiths” of conversion whose services they knowingly engaged. If the latter offer to spill the beans on their principals, why shouldn’t we listen?

Some commentators think that the specter of the 2016 elections looms over this scandal. I sincerely hope it does. It is time our voters realized what kind of scoundrels they keep returning to public office. This is surely a turning point in our nation’s life, and a test of political will for P-Noy. So long as our citizens continue to be vigilant, there is every reason to hope that public governance will get better in the coming years.

* * *

Get Inquirer updates while on the go, add us on these apps:

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • josh_alexei

    Mr. David, everyone who witness against an accused in a Criminal case is a witness for the State or the Crown as the case maybe and that is soo understood that even your good English Professor can well understand…so the term with an apostrophe s is not really a necessity.

    • alienpatriot

      Josh, your grammar is awful and it makes your comment unreadable.

      “Mr. David, everyone who ACTS AS witness against an accused in a Criminal case is a witness for the State, or the Crown as the case may be, and that is so WELL understood that even your good English Professor can well understand”
      Ok. With some editing we can make sense of that …. but how that makes the term “state’s witness” unnecessary is anyone’s guess. Was there a point that you wated to make?

      • josh_alexei

        Ask the Professor and his good English Professor friend as my own English is not that good, even though I live and work all my life in an English speaking country…but my point is, the term is a legal term and if you happen to take a peek in the whole language of an Act or Statute, you will find somewhere in the beginning that every Phrase or word as used in the Act or Law is defined in context with that particular Statute..Go and check it out..and no good English Professor can say if it is right or wrong.

  • josh_alexei

    Now if even anyone question the turning of Janet to become the witness for the state, consider this…One Janet Napoles sentenced for very long term in prison, sued for whatever assets she may have left in “her” name or the Convictions of many others of the same guilt, more guilt, lesser guilt on the weight of one “criminal“ testimonies and evidence against her fellow “criminals“ and the possibility of forfeiting of their assets for the State in a civil suit, then this option is very is just like shooting down a hundred or more of her fellow outlaws with her own six-shooters…that talks

  • garyvdd

    making napoles a state’s witness is logical & will assure that the case/s against the corrupt senators & congressmen will prosper.

  • Ennimac

    When are they arresting the senators and congressmen?

    • Garo Ungaro

      When they have the guts and balls to serve the arrest warrants, the real power play will begin, no respect for the rule of law specially from the senate/congress. more problems ahead?…politics…politics…hope they will got it/do it right?…The rule of law must prevail?…

  • Battman Bin Supparman

    So we got the government that we deserve because the electorate does
    not pay careful attention to the process of voting. They think it’s
    entertainment, they think it’s a pastime,” MirriamSantiago

  • alienpatriot

    I am often asked by many Pinoys why I never have a good word to say for JPE. My question to them is why they do aee positives in the man.
    He is smart. There can be do doubt about his intellect.

    He is dangerous. Despite his record, many people in this country still trust him. He was Senate President until recently.
    He is a psychopath. When his son started murdering acquaintances, JPE almost certainly helped cover it up. It seems to have caused a fight between him and Jack, not because JPE disliked having people killed but because it weakened his position woth Marcos. Marcos saw that JPE could not control his own son.
    Every now and then a psychopath like JPE emerges on the world stage. Hitler, Stalin, Assad. JPE is not on the list only because he has never quite managed to get the top job. Let’s hope that no political ticket has associations with him in 2016. Lets hope this Pork Barrel issue finally catches JPE out.

    • Bidoyski

      To put it simply, he is a smart TRAPO.

    • satoriseeker

      he’s always had that Cassius look on him……
      “….. lean and hungry….” for power
      kaya nga si dictator marcos aware sa mga galaw ni crafty, sneaky, and greedy enrile

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


editors' picks

May 23, 2015

Tough guy

May 22, 2015

China versus Edca