Our political and judicial impotence

THE assassination of Benigno Aquino Jr. 19 years ago is probably the political event that has left the strongest impact in the memory of most Filipinos since the Japanese invasion in 1942. For one, it triggered a chain of political upheavals leading to the 1986 People Power “revolution.”

Each time Edsa 1 is celebrated, the nation is inevitably led back into memory lane with the reminder that the long fuse of that “revolution” was lit on Aug. 21, 1983. The assassination was kilometer zero, the turning point of a new era of turbulent politics that spawned not only Edsa 1, but Edsa 2 and Edsa 3, as well.

In last Wednesday’s commemoration, it was poignant to note that we were no nearer to solving the murder than we were 19 years ago. In that span of time, two trials were held at the Sandiganbayan. The first trial, in the division headed by Justice Manuel Pamaran, ended on Dec. 2, 1985, with the acquittal for murder of eight officers and enlisted men. The case was ordered reopened by the Supreme Court, after a judicial commission found that the acquittal was “rendered by reason of undue pressure by Malaca¤ang.”

The amended information, filed during the Aquino presidency, accused 41 persons, mostly soldiers, of the murder of Aquino and Rolando Galman. The information included Gen. Fabian Ver, Marcos’ chief of staff of the armed forces and director general of the National Intelligence and Security Authority; Maj. Gen. Prospero A. Olivas, former chief of the Metropolitan Command of the Philippine Constabulary; and Brig. Gen. Luther Custodio, chief of the Aviation Security Command at the airport where Aquino was assassinated. Ver and Olivas were charged as accessories in the conspiracy.

On Sept. 28, 1990, or four years into the Aquino presidency, the Sandiganbayan found 16 military men guilty, including Custodio, and sentenced them to two terms of life imprisonment. It acquitted 20 others, including Olivas and Marcos’ tourism minister, Jose Aspiras. Ver could not be presented in court as he had fled the country with Marcos and his retinue in 1986. The 177-page decision came to the “inescapable conclusion” that Constable Rogelio Aquino was the triggerman and confirmed the findings of the Agrava Fact-Finding Board that there was a military conspiracy to murder Aquino.

The decision failed to establish who were behind the conspiracy. That issue has remained unclear up until today. Fifteen soldiers are serving terms in the Muntinlupa national penitentiary. Custodio died of cancer on Jan. 16, 1991, and Ver died on Nov. 21, 1998 in Bangkok. They died keeping their secrets. No one has come up with serious information tracing the authors of the conspiracy, and this remains the central mystery of the murder.

During the Aquino presidency, the case was reopened, but there is no evidence that President Aquino went out of her way to use the resources of the government to go to the bottom of the murder. Clearly, the new government was preoccupied with the dauntless task of rebuilding democracy and was fighting for survival from six coup attempts.

As far as I know, there are at least two books published about the assassination-the Agrava Board Report published in 1984, and Lewis Simons’ “Worth Dying For,” in 1987. The book has only peripheral references to the assassination and the subsequent trials.

It is in this context that Sen. Aquilino Pimentel has challenged former President Fidel V. Ramos to reveal what he knew about the assassination. Pimentel hit it right on the head when in a privilege speech last Wednesday he said that, “As PC chief, it is impossible for Mr. Ramos not to have known about the planned murder of Ninoy. Or if he did not know the plotters before the act was done, it is impossible for him not to know after it was done.”

Ramos, who was chief of military intelligence in the early Marcos years, is presumed not to have lost his interest in what was happening inside the regime. Ramos at the time had fallen out of favor with Marcos and was isolated from Marcos’ inner circles. But Ramos, up until today, has maintained his silence.

Another former close associate of Marcos was then Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile. Also at that time, Enrile had been excluded from the inner circles of Marcos and was, in fact, being suspected of plotting against him. Enrile has so far kept his mouth sealed. The other possible sources of information are the 15 soldiers serving sentences in Muntinlupa, but are they willing to talk? And if they talk, how much do they know beyond the tasks assigned to them on that fateful day?

The solution of the Aquino murder is a reflection of the ability of the government, its law enforcement agencies, and the judicial system to solve what probably is the most outrageous political murder in the history of post-war Philippine democracy. Not that we have not had political assassinations in the past. The assassination of Andres Bonifacio is a case in point, taking place when the revolution was struggling to overthrow Spanish rule.

If this nation has to come to terms with its past and establish a system of justice that is effective in not only solving political murders but also in sending important and influential people to jail, the Aquino assassination riddle stands as a symbol of our political and judicial impotence.