Can’t the same standard be used in Makati?

My attention was recently caught by a news report that on Sept. 22 the Sandiganbayan (SB) found Zenaida Maamo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 3 (h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and that it had sentenced her to a prison term of six years and one month (minimum) to 10 years (maximum), plus perpetual disqualification from public office.

What was her crime? As mayor of Liloan, Southern Leyte, Maamo hosted in 1995 a visit by President Fidel Ramos. She contracted out the catering for the affair to seven eateries, one of which apparently belonged to her. The bill for everything amounted to some P87,000 (50 persons, 3 meals a day x 5 days, and 350 persons, 2 meals x 2 days). The amount that went to her eatery was P43,000. I repeat: P43,000.

The case against her was brought by her successor, Tomas Tan. (Aha! It was politics!) Presumably, he filed charges at the Office of the Ombudsman (OO) soon after he took over. (Pity she didn’t have a son or husband to succeed her; then there would have been no problem.) But the information was filed with the SB only in 2005 (end April), or 10 years after the misdeed. And the SB took another nine years to resolve the case. Thus is justice dispensed in the Philippines.

I bring this case up so it can be compared with the cases I mentioned last week in this column, brought against the former mayor of Makati early on in his reign—1994.

Charges were filed by the OO against Jejomar Binay in 1994, although the complaints were brought way back in 1987. The Maamo case is similar in that the OO took about the same time between the filing of the complaint against her and the actual charge before the SB.

The reaction by the accused to the OO’s charges, however, seem to be totally different. Whereas Maamo made no effort to demur—lawyers are expensive, after all—Binay immediately asked the SB to quash the information against him, saying that his right to due process had been violated by the long delay of the OO. When that didn’t succeed, he moved for reconsideration, and when that didn’t succeed, he ran to the Supreme Court for succor. The high court found in his favor, and ordered the SB to dot its i’s and cross its t’s.

After the SB did just that, and still finding no reason to quash and still suspending him, Binay came up with another delaying tactic: He claimed that the SB had no jurisdiction over him, and that the proper court was the Regional Trial Court. The SB denied him, so he ran to the Supreme Court again for a temporary restraining order. The high court again found in his favor.

And the high court took another four years to decide that, after all, the SB had jurisdiction. Binay thus bought six years of extra time.

That’s where the column ended last week. I passed by the SB yesterday, and got the current status of the cases. Guess what? It turns out that in 2001, the OO withdrew the charges of malversation and violation of Republic Act No. 3019 Sec. 3 (e) or “Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence….”

Note: It took the Office of the Ombudsman seven years to file charges, and then another seven years to withdraw them. And the Sandiganbayan, Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, ponente, said it assumed that the Ombudsman knew what he was doing. That’s it. The case was never tried on its merits.

Who was the Ombudsman at the time?

Aniano Desierto (1995-2002), whose “record was so tainted that the late Sen. Lorenzo Tañada refused to address him directly.” What record? Among other things, Ernesto Francisco, a lawyer, accused him of taking a bribe, and the late Haydee Yorac also wanted him impeached. The House of Representatives thumbed it down.

Anyway, that’s the status of last week’s cases. Does that mean Binay is not guilty of the charges? What charges? They were withdrawn by Ombudsman Desierto.

Meanwhile, Maamo goes to jail. The moral of the story? I can see two lessons: One, get yourself a good lawyer, who can delay proceedings while you are negotiating for a better outcome. But that means that your costs are higher, so for an elective official, it also means having to be more corrupt. And two, having a relative (son, daughter, wife) succeed you ensures that your dirty linen won’t get aired in public.

But think of it. Maamo was sentenced to jail, obviously not because of the amount involved, but because she broke the law: Sec. 89 of the Local Government Code, which says “it is unlawful for any local government official, directly or indirectly, to engage in any business transaction with the local government unit in which he is an official or employee….” Cannot the same standard be used in Makati?

But Maamo’s punishment came almost 20 years after the crime was committed. And she obviously didn’t have access to the best lawyers that money can buy, or it could have gone the other way. Are we to wait that long, or longer, for justice to be dispensed in the Binay case? I guess that is why the Senate blue ribbon subcommittee is so important. It serves as a mechanism to let the public know what we would not otherwise find out in a timely fashion under the present justice system, with its delays and predilection for transactional justice.