Is there a deal to cover up for Enrile?

The Senate blue ribbon committee inquiry into the P10-billion pork barrel scam has developed into the most gripping political circus in the chamber since the impeachment trial of Renato Corona, the former chief justice.

The inquiry has degenerated into a public spectacle. The latest hearing featured the testimony of Ruby Tuason, former social secretary of then president Joseph Estrada (now mayor of Manila), who is hoping to become state’s witness in the plunder case against businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles, Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and Ramon Revilla Jr., and others.

The three senators are charged with plunder in the Office of the Ombudsman in connection with the racket allegedly masterminded by Napoles, involving the transfer of their pork barrel allocations to her dubious nongovernment organizations in exchange for multimillion-peso kickbacks.

Tuason is herself charged with plunder. But she has stolen the show from the political heavyweights—i.e., the three senators—by testifying that she delivered cash kickbacks to Jinggoy Estrada in his Senate office and elsewhere, and also to Enrile’s chief of staff, Jessica “Gigi” Reyes.

Her testimony has generated a heated debate among other senators as to whether she is qualified to be state’s witness. Sen. Antonio Trillanes has declared that he found Tuason’s testimony wanting, and Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, that Tuason was “trying to tread on as few toes as possible,” hinting at a cover-up.

At the hearing last week, Trillanes told Tuason that the public was watching if she would cover up for anyone after earlier announcing that she had decided to come forward and ask to be covered by the Department of Justice’s Witness Protection Program.

Santiago observed that Tuason appeared to hesitate in giving testimony derogatory to Enrile. But she described Tuason as a “perfect witness” for the prosecution. She also said that Tuason was an “eyewitness” to the scam, and met all the requirements to be state’s witness, and that Tuason’s testimony was “sufficient” to convict the key players in the scandal beyond reasonable doubt.

As a key figure in the current Senate inquiry, Enrile finds himself in the dock; his role in the pork barrel scam is now under close scrutiny. This is in contrast to when he served as presiding judge in the Corona impeachment trial, where he played a hero’s role and was lauded by the Aquino administration for the then chief justice’s conviction of “betrayal of public trust” and subsequent dismissal from office. After having rendered a decision against the administration’s bete noire—i.e., Corona—the Senate is now faced with difficult questions, among which are: Who will gain from the prosecution of Enrile? Whose interests will be served by a cover-up?

This is what makes Tuason’s testimony so important and intriguing. Will a cover-up serve the larger public interest, or the narrow vindictive politics of the Aquino administration?

A day after grilling Tuason at the Senate hearing, Trillanes said he was convinced that she was a credible witness and could testify against the senators involved in the scandal. But here’s the catch: He doubted that Tuason was telling the truth.

Trillanes noted that Tuason pinned down Estrada by testifying that she personally handed him cash kickbacks from Napoles’ fictitious development projects but that she pulled her punches when questioned about kickbacks

supposedly given to Enrile, only saying that she gave similar cash kickbacks to his chief of staff in classy restaurants or in the latter’s home.

Trillanes noted that the case “appeared to be already complete,” but he warned that defense lawyers could exploit “the lack of details” should the case be sent to the Sandiganbayan. He also pointed out that Tuason appeared uncertain under questioning by Sen. Teofisto Guingona III, the chair of the blue ribbon committee.

Tuason’s testimony was lacking in specifics, which would be vital to the prosecution of the accused senators in court, Trillanes observed. “She was rather clear in the part about Jinggoy Estrada. When it came to the part about Senator Enrile, she suddenly became forgetful. It was as if she wasn’t interested,” he said.

This has led Trillanes to wonder whether there was a scheme to save Enrile from prosecution. “That was pretty obvious [at the hearing],”

Trillanes said. “It is now to each his own. Each one is left to his own devices. In this case, it’s unfortunate for Sen. Jinggoy Estrada. It appears that he is now being dropped.” In other words, Estrada appears to be evolving as a scapegoat. Trillanes said he was verifying information that Tuason’s lawyer was once a member of Enrile’s law firm. The plot is thickening.

Is there a tradeoff under which the administration is paying off Enrile for his role as presiding judge at the impeachment court which found Corona guilty of “betrayal of public trust” for dishonesty in declaring his assets, liabilities and net worth?

Whether the testimony of Tuason strengthened the government’s plunder case against Enrile, Estrada, Revilla and 30 other respondents and whether Tuason can qualify as state’s witness remain unclear. What is clear is that the respondents are not charged with criminal offenses in the Senate inquiry. The respondents can be investigated by the Senate committee on ethics without criminal liability. The blue ribbon committee hearings have served the purpose of unveiling evidence from whistle-blowers’ testimonies, which may be used when the plunder case is sent by the Ombudsman to the Sandiganbayan for trial.