The public trials of Duterte and De Lima
THE NATION has been riveted by two public trials in the past two weeks involving the President of the Republic and a senator of the realm.
Both are accused of the most heinous offenses—President Duterte of being the benefactor of a murder syndicate, and Sen. Leila de Lima of being the protector of drug syndicates.
The President is portrayed as a ruthless city mayor who ordered the killing not only of criminals but also of his opponents through the Davao Death Squad (DDS). And De Lima is painted as a corrupt justice secretary who allowed convicted drug lords and other criminals to turn the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) into a “Little Las Vegas” and the center of a multibillion-peso operation in illegal drugs.
The witnesses against both officials are all criminals. One is a confessed hitman who has just now been charged with frustrated murder; the others are convicted felons who are serving time in prison.
The single witness against the President is Edgar Matobato, a confessed former member of the DDS. He has claimed that he was personally responsible for 50 murders, and that the DDS was responsible for more than 1,000 extrajudicial killings. The horrific killings he described include one victim being fed alive to a crocodile, and others whose stomachs were cut open so “the fish could eat” their innards when they were dumped into the sea.
The witnesses against De Lima include convicts who are gang leaders at the national penitentiary in Muntinlupa—Herbert Colanggo, Rodolfo Magleo, Jaime Pacho, Noel Martinez, Jojo Baligad, Froilan Trestiza and Hans Anton Tan.
These convicts testified that De Lima raised funds for her senatorial campaign by demanding millions of pesos in protection money from drug lords doing time at the NBP. In exchange, the drug lords were allowed to trade in illegal drugs, which they were able to sell both inside the prison and outside because they were allowed unhampered use of mobile phones. Some convicts also testified that De Lima
allowed gang leaders to enjoy lavish lifestyles inside the NBP, with privileges such as hotel-like rooms and toilets, offices similar to those congressmen use, and concerts and parties where beer flowed, high-price call girls were brought in, and where Sharon Cuneta, Freddie Aguilar, and the Mocha Girls performed.
The witnesses against De Lima also included former Bureau of Corrections chief and now National Bureau of Investigation Deputy Director Rafael Ragos and his aide Jovencio Ablen, both confessed criminal accomplices who allegedly served as conduits in delivering millions of pesos in protection money to De Lima.
What have been presented so far in both investigations are oral testimonies of witnesses. Bare words are largely the kind of evidence disclosed to the public. In actual court trials, oral testimonies are tested for weakness through cross-examination, and their strengths are reinforced with corroborating evidence.
The lawmakers are doing their versions of cross-examination, and their questions are aimed at either weakening or strengthening the witnesses’ testimonies.
As regards corroborating evidence—which refers to additional evidence that bolsters the believability of each oral testimony—the witnesses have provided leads and clues on what these pieces of evidence are, but they have largely not been presented.
In the case of the accusations against the President, what will serve as corroborating evidence are the remains of the murder victims which, according to Matobato, are buried in unmarked graves whose locations he remembers, and supporting evidence that confirms the crucial details of the killings he mentioned, among others.
In the case of the accusations against De Lima, the corroborating evidence will be bank deposit slips, bank accounts, and mobile phone contents, among others. The pictures of the luxuries enjoyed by the gang leaders inside the prison camps and the testimony of Director Benjamin Magalong, former head of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, constitute partial corroborating evidence.
The proceedings at the Senate and the House are formally in the nature of “legislative investigations in aid of legislation” that are intended to help lawmakers write new laws. But informally, they are public trials in the sense that they are aimed at convincing the public to form an opinion with regard to the separate accusations against the President and De Lima. The similar aim of these two trials is to sway public opinion.
But these congressional proceedings will not result in the ouster from office and imposition of criminal penalties on either the President or De Lima.
To oust and penalize the President requires accomplishing a four-stage process: 1) One-third of the House members will sign an impeachment charge; 2) two-thirds of the senators will decide on an impeachment conviction; 3) the Ombudsman will file criminal charges; and 4) the Sandiganbayan will render a decision of conviction.
In contrast, to oust and penalize De Lima requires completing a two-stage process: 1) The Ombudsman will file criminal charges; and 2) the Sandiganbayan will render a decision of conviction.
The risk of liability faced by Mr. Duterte and De Lima haunts them beyond their stay in power as city mayor and justice secretary, respectively. For all our government officials who wield power, this serves as a cautionary tale of an end to power. And when that end comes, the reckoning begins for any misuse or abuse of power.
* * *
Comments to [email protected]
