Janet Napoles may reveal all she knows about the P10-billion pork barrel scam—but regardless of what she says, she cannot serve as state’s witness. She is not only alleged to be the scam’s very mastermind; she has also been accused, by whistle-blowers, who used to work for her, of earning hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pesos from the plunder of the pork barrel funds herself.
By any definition, Napoles cannot be considered the least guilty among the many persons charged with violations of the plunder and antigraft laws in the abuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund. We realize that the law stipulates what seems to be the opposite: One of the necessary conditions for an accused to qualify as a state’s witness is that he or she does not appear to be the most guilty. But the already available evidence provided by the whistle-blowers or gathered by the Commission on Audit and the Department of Justice or adverted to in the Ombudsman’s findings of probable cause demonstrate that Napoles is a key principal in the scam.
It is possible that Napoles’ controversial, still-unseen second affidavit will point to a politician or two as the actual mastermind of the pork barrel scam. But her role in the complicated process to launder PDAF allocations through fake nongovernment organizations or fake projects into private pockets cannot conceivably be understood as less than crucial to the entire criminal enterprise; indeed, the fact that many NGOs identified with her were involved in the scam proves that she played a central role in the plunder of the pork barrel.
To be sure, there was a case to be made for turning Napoles into a state’s witness in the early days of the pork barrel scandal.
Writing last August, less than two months after the scam hit the headlines, sociologist Randy David warned the public against a too-hasty rejection of the option. “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.”
That was a courageous stance, and it made sense then, especially because Napoles had not yet made her disastrous appearance before the Senate blue ribbon committee, where her studied evasiveness was taken by many as proof of her criminal liability. But the case against Napoles, the three senators and others deeply implicated in the scam has grown since last year; a lot of evidence has come in, pointing, not only to the direct liability of Senators Jinggoy Estrada, Bong Revilla and Juan Ponce Enrile, but also to Napoles’ indispensable role as broker and operator.
This is not to say that we should not welcome Napoles’ reported change of heart. As we argued yesterday, she should “tell all”—if not as a strategy to ensure her security, then as an attempt to ease her conscience.
“We believe that, should Napoles truly tell all about the pork barrel scam (mindful that implicating herself is the true measure of her testimony), clarity will be the primary gift. Her testimony will allow all of us to understand why, and how, the scam came to be.”
But this gift of clarity cannot come at the expense of justice.
She may offer to return the money she illegally earned from the scam; she may name more lawmakers she partnered with; she may provide damning documentary evidence that in itself will be enough to send sitting senators to prison. But she cannot enjoy the legal immunity her husband is supposed to be negotiating for her. If found guilty by the Sandiganbayan, she may enjoy a reduced sentence, or special consideration because of her recent health concerns. But that should be all.
Offering her immunity in exchange for her complete and candid testimony does not meet either letter or spirit of the law; given all that is already in the public record, allowing her to turn state’s witness will be a travesty of justice.