WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER SEN. MANNY Villar has kept his own counsel on the C-5 issue, or whether his closest allies have been dispensing bad advice, but for a man who has stoutly protested his innocence, he is certainly acting guilty.

Except for unburdening himself in one angry privilege speech many months ago, he has essentially refused to take part in the Senate proceedings investigating the allegations thrown by Senators Ping Lacson and Jamby Madrigal that he had abused his position to make an unconscionable profit in a land-and-public-works deal at the government?s expense.

He had one plausible excuse for boycotting the proceedings: As his allies led by Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. argued before the Supreme Court, the Senate investigation?conducted not by the ethics committee but by the Senate itself, convened as a committee of the whole?was in fact a done, dastardly, deed. Their petition read, in part: ?the rules adopted by the majority of the Senate committee of the whole clearly show utter disregard of such rules in favor of the hanging rope of a lynch mob.? In other words, the investigation was political.

Villar?s latest act of self-defense, however, tramples this argument under the heavy boots of political hypocrisy. In a highly political act that showed utter disregard for the Senate?s own traditions, he approved, or caused to be issued, a Senate resolution clearing him of the charges.

The resolution, signed by six senators from the minority and six from the majority, concluded that there was no double insertion in the national budget, no realignment of the C-5 road extension project and no overprice in the valuation of the land owned by Villar?s real estate companies?the key accusations leveled at Villar. But the resolution was not based on an in-depth reading but rather a summary review of the evidence. It was circulated even while the committee of the whole was wrapping up its work. And it was signed by many of the same senators who had refused to take part in the Senate investigation?including Villar himself!

Villar, Pimentel, Villar?s close ally Joker Arroyo, maverick Liberal Francis Pangilinan and the Nacionalista brother-and-sister tandem of Alan Peter and Pia Cayetano had not only accused the Senate majority, under Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, of creating what amounted to a kangaroo court; they also petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene. That they now signed a resolution clearing Villar ahead of the Senate?s own report insults the very chamber they themselves said had been travestied by the Villar charges.

(The six senators from the majority who signed the resolution were Lito Lapid and Bong Revilla, the administration?s seat-warmers; Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Gringo Honasan, Arroyo loyalists with an independent streak; and Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada, now a guest candidate on Villar?s Senate slate for the 2010 elections, and Loren Legarda, once a critic of Villar?s but now his running mate.)

The heated debate that inevitably ensued in the Senate last Tuesday can be summed up in two contrasting statements. ?It?s just that 12 senators have decided to express a view on the [C-5] matter,? Pimentel said at one point, reducing the resolution to a mere expression of opinion. Enrile, who said the resolution disrespected him and presented a challenge to his presidency, defined it as ?a subtle way of clearing the respondent without having to wait for the committee report.? The resolution, in other words, was a legislative sleight-of-hand.

The debate forced both Villar?s de facto spokesman in the Senate and the leader of the minority to explain the magic trick. Sen. Alan Cayetano said the resolution was necessary because it was ?important for the people to know this [Villar?s innocence]? before the deadline for the filing of certificates of candidacy. And Pimentel, acceding to Enrile?s wishes, said he had no objection to ?our resolution being referred to the committee on rules with the supposition that the committee report will be presented side by side so that these can be compared by the people and we can debate on the substance of the resolution. We only hope there is a timetable.?

There it is: In politics, timing is everything.