Betrayal
It was bound to happen. When Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile allowed his purported counsel Enrique de la Cruz to preview his line of defense in the pork barrel scam—that the former Senate president did not authorize any diversion of his funds from local government units to nongovernment organizations, and that “if he had employees that didn’t follow this or did something to divert the said funds to NGOs, it wasn’t in compliance with [his] instructions”—the employees concerned can be expected to feel they were being made the scapegoats, to be left twisting in the wind while their powerful boss got off scot-free.
It must have been the unkindest cut of all especially to Enrile’s former chief of staff, Jessica Lucila “Gigi” Reyes, who served him for 25 years, and was often a lightning rod for him, even enduring gossip that their relationship had gone from strictly professional to one more intimate. (The Chicago Tribune reported 15 years ago that Enrile’s wife Cristina charged him with adultery in January 1998, and even named the “other woman” as Gigi Gonzales-Reyes.) Both Enrile and Reyes had strenuously and unfailingly denied the gossip. But it was also true that, for a quarter of a century, Reyes did not leave his side—a position that, according to reports, allowed her in time to acquire her own, not inconsiderable, sense of power and influence.
Before resigning as Enrile’s chief of staff, Reyes was routinely dubbed the “25th senator,” the trusted aide who disbursed funds in the millions of pesos and managed the administration of the chamber on behalf of her boss. As Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano pointed out in a privilege speech last January, Reyes, alone among the senators’ chief aides, was allowed in the exclusive Senate lounge to hobnob with the senators, and attended Senate caucuses where she could “speak her mind and join the discussion.”
In the wake of that speech, and the larger controversy over her involvement in the cash gifts Enrile had doled out to certain favored senators in December 2012, Reyes irrevocably resigned her position, despite her boss’ public entreaties for her to stay. She had since not been heard from—until last Sept. 21 when she issued a statement reacting to De la Cruz’s apparent game plan to shift the blame to her for the irregularities uncovered in Enrile’s Priority Development Assistance Fund.
It wasn’t just a statement; it was a cry from the heart lamenting betrayal. “The worst blow has just been dealt upon me by no less than the camp of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile—the man I served with full dedication, honesty and loyalty for 25 years,” she said. That line was written in capital letters, as was a subsequent line lamenting that De la Cruz was now absolving Enrile of any responsibility in the PDAF controversy while baldly accusing her of doing things without her erstwhile boss’ knowledge. “If indeed these statements are sanctioned by or coming from my former boss, then nothing can be worse than this kind of travesty and betrayal.”
One can be outraged at the enormousness of the crimes related to the pork barrel funds, yet allow Reyes a moment’s pause. If the woman is to be believed, none of what she did in office was without the authorization of her boss—one of the country’s wiliest lawyers and political survivors. That record can only be because Enrile maintains full knowledge and control of everything that happens by his hand and within his sphere of influence. Observers may thus find it a bit much for him to feign ignorance of activities relating to his pork barrel—and cast adrift his most loyal employee.
But Reyes may have the last laugh. An ominous part of her statement, and the one that will surely interest those tasked to prosecute Enrile et al. over the misuse of their PDAF, appeared to preview as well the defense she will take if push comes to shove: “The last time I spoke to the Senator from abroad, he maintained that he will stand by the authority he issued to me and that all that I did was faithful and pursuant to his instructions. He even told me to be strong; that we will fight together to prove the accusations against us are false and fabricated.”
This woman knows where the bodies are buried, so to speak. She may want to take the high road for her country and disclose what she did that was “faithful and pursuant to his instructions.” In the matter of the plunder of the PDAF, what did her former boss know, and when did he know it?
