We thank Chief State Prosecutor Claro Arellano, Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Richard Anthony Fadulion and Senior State Prosecutor Juan Navera for their statement dated 25 June 2010.

Their statement – no, their very own admission – has verified facts that we have ourselves stated and as a result of which, the public and our courts can now determine if the Department’s refusal to provide to the now deceased witness “Jessie” was both legally and morally justified.

Please consider the following:

1. They agreed to interview the witness Jessie on March 1, 2010 at 3PM at the UP Law Center. Unknown to them, the UP Law Center was only a rendezvous as days before, we had already asked Chairperson Leila de Lima for her good offices by hosting and witnessing, for monitoring purposes, the government prosecutors interview with Jessie. The prosecutors on the day itself unilaterally declared that they would not travel to the UP Law Center and that the witness would have to be brought to the DOJ premises. We then asked the witness whether he was willing to go to the DOJ. His reply was: DOJ, “hwag doon. Hawak ng mga Ampatuan yun”. This was months before DOJ Secretary Agra would dismiss the criminal charges against Zaldy and Akmad Ampatuan. Clearly, it was not me or any of my colleagues said that the “DOJ” was hawak ng “Ampatuan”. It was the witness himself.

2. We confirm that we did suggest a hotel near the airport as an alternative venue for March 1. This was because of the refusal of the witness to step foot in the DOJ premises for reasons that he had already stated. We chose that particular American chain hotel precisely because of its very strict security arrangements replete with metal detectors and sniffing dogs at the entrance for both cars and individuals. We certainly felt that we would all be safer there compared to the DOJ, which incidentally, does not even have even hand held detectors at its entrance.

3. Initially, the WPP acceded. Again at the last minute, the Committee changed their decision and called the meeting off. He did say that aside from the DOJ as their preferred venue, then Secretary Agnes Devenadera was on the way out and the Committee had to confer with her. We brought the witness to Manila on that date precisely because upon the advice of the WPP, we needed Secretary Devenadera to approve his enrollment into the WPP. Apparently, the personal action of the sitting Secretary was required for this purpose. This was why we were both apprehensive and frustrated that the interview did not push through.

4. In any case, since the witness was already in Manila, we still brought him to the office of Chairperson De Lima who met and heard the testimony of the witness. One of the things Chair de Lima said in that meeting was that “she was frustrated that the CHR did not have the capability to provide witness protection as she would have otherwise provided it to Jessie”. We hope the incoming Secretary of Justice will confirm this fact.

5. It was after this aborted meeting that we decided to reduce into writing the application of the witness into the WPP. We included a detailed narration of what would have been his testimony. By then, I already suspected that the Department was lukewarm to admit the witness into the program for reasons unclear to me. I then thought that by detailing his proposed testimony, we would be able to memorialize the fact that the Department did not go out of its way to interview the witness despite the seriousness of his testimony. This turned out to be a very good decision because while the department now insists that the interview could have taken place at the vicinity of the DOJ, certainly, the seriousness of the testimony would otherwise lead to the conclusion that had the WPP used even ordinary diligence, they should have gotten out of their way to interview the witness. Besides, there is no rule which mandates that all interviews of the WPP should be conducted at the premises of the DOJ. Human experience, on the contrary, dictates that witnesses at risk would demand a more secure location than the premises of the DOJ. If security were indeed the concern, we wonder why the Prosecutors did not bother to suggest a military camp as a venue.

6. The records bear out the fact that we submitted to the DOJ a detailed narration of what would have been Jessie’s testimony. The state prosecutors have admitted receiving the narration attached to a communication we sent to the DOJ dated March 5, 2010; in fact, Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Richard Anthony Fadullon replied to our query in a letter dated March 11, 2010. They too admitted to this.

7. This belies Secretary Agra’s statement to Human Rights Watch (HRW) when the international human rights group told him about Jessie’s case that he has not heard of him. It boggles the mind that a matter of such high importance should not be communicated to him by his state prosecutors.

8. If the state prosecutors did not relay to him the facts regarding Jessie’s application into the WPP, they are liable for dereliction of duty. Assuming that Secretary Agra made good of his word to the HRW that he would look into the matter but in the process, the state prosecutors decided to withhold the information about Jessie from him, it only makes things worse for the state prosecutors. But this in itself does not absolve Secretary Agra of liability; after all, he is the Justice Secretary. How can he not now of the case when his own state prosecutors now admit they officially received and replied to an application for admission into the DOJ’s Witness Protection Program from Jessie? Ultimately, the buck stops where he sits at the top of the hierarchy at the DOJ. Given this, we wonder how he can say that he leaves the Department as one “extremely happy” man.

9. We confirm all the other details which they mentioned, including the meeting on March 12 where the lawyer of the witness – Macky Hernandez –was in attendance. This would prove in no uncertain terms that Secretary Agra lied when he claimed that I was representing the victims and a killer at the same time. I also confirm that I obtained for the witness, with his conformity, an independent counsel. This was because I knew that I had a conflict of interest and could not represent both victims and killer at the same time. The witness having his own counsel avoided this conflict and also ensured that the constitutional rights of a witness, whose testimony my clients required, would be protected.

10. While we admit that our second meeting did not push through because we could not bring the witness immediately from where he was then seeking sanctuary, we dispute that we did nothing to schedule a third one. It was Senior State Prosecutor Navera himself who, in refusing a third attempt at an interview said that they were no longer interested in meeting the witness. On that day, he arrogantly gave a deadline of 5 p.m., after which, he said, any talk about getting the witness into the WPP would be over and done with. He even sarcastically texted that we should not have brought him to the media first.

11. Further, their statement that I walked out of a hearing on January 20, 2010 is both a lie and is downright malicious. The records will show that the hearing on that day was recessed at 11AM after Gov. Magundadatu had finished with his cross-examination. It was during the recess that my clients and I talked to the assembled media outside the courtroom to discuss our filing with the Asian Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights. This was a filing that the prosecutors, echoing the position of then Secretary Devenedara, did not like because they mistook it as an expression of distrust with the on-going criminal proceedings here. On the contrary, the ASEAN filing was to declare the Philippines guilty of breach of obligation to protect and promote the right to life of the victims. With such a declaration, the Philippines would in turn be constrained to pay reparations to the victims.

12. I dispute Prosecutor Navera’s assertion that I have been belligerent. But I would agree that I have differed with the Public Prosecutors on at least three issues: First, the place of detention for the Ampatuans. The Public Prosecutors wanted a special detention for them, my clients wanted them to be treated like ordinary criminals and hence, they wanted them detained in the Quezon City Jail. We filed a “manifestation” in this regard after our clients confirmed that the Ampatuans were being given special treatment in the General Santos facility where many of the Ampatuans were then detained. The victims could file a manifestation, unlike a “motion” alone. A proper motion could only be filed with the conformity if the public prosecutor. Obviously, we filed a manifestation because the prosecutors until today – despite the press conferences and the parties in Bicutan where the Ampatuans are still detained – would not want to detain the accused in Quezon City jail.

13. Second, we filed similar “manifestations” on the issues of live coverage and the fact that the victims whom we represent have lost their trust and confidence on Secretary Agra. In the latter manifestation, we also asked the court to defer proceedings until after July 1 after the administration of President Arroyo. Again these were manifestations filed to register the sentiments of the victims to the court as otherwise, the conformity of the prosecutors would be required. Certainly, the 14 victims whom we represent have earned the right to let their feelings known to both the court and the public.

14. Finally, to dispute that we have been belligerent to the Public Prosecutors, we drafted and filed, with their conformity, a motion to cite BJMP officials in contempt for allowing accused Unsay to conduct a press conference in Bicutan.

15. While the prosecutors and I agree substantially on the recital of facts, the issue remains whether despite their detailed knowledge of the nature of testimony of the witness, they were justified in their failure to even listen to the witness in person. In this regard, we submit that Agra and the DOJ cannot wash their hands of the death of a potential witness with a potentially damning testimony against suspects in the most gruesome massacre perpetrated in the Philippines in recent memory. At the very least, they cannot escape liability and culpability for their dereliction of duty as public officers.

16. Ultimately, it is the State, through the DOJ, that is precisely tasked to protect and promote the right to life of individuals, especially those who have come to them for assistance. No amount of blaming others can absolve the DOJ and the state in this regard.

Got this by email from Nena Santos, lawyer for the Magundadatu family. It’s a statement from DoJ prosecutors in the ongoing word war between Harry Roque and the DoJ.

It will be recalled that Roque has blamed the DoJ for the recent death of one of the witnesses in the case. The prosecutors, led by Richard Fadullon, are asking why Roque seems more concerned with courting the media than in prosecuting the case.

Remember that while Secretary Alberto Agra has taken up the cudgels against Roque, Agra previously tried to get the Ampatuans off the hook.  It was the public protests by  his own prosecutors–including Fadullon– opposing Agra’s action that helped trigger public outrage and forced Agra to reverse himself.

Santos, who has become a driving force in the prosecution of the Ampatuans, has apparently taken the side of the public prosecutors. The letter suggests that Roque, through a lack of diligence, is partly responsible for the witnesses death.

STATEMENT OF THE PANEL OF PROSECUTORS REGARDING THE DEATH OF SUWAIB UPHAM AND ATTY. HARRY ROQUE’S ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE DOJ

A few days before “Jessie” appeared for a press conference on March 9, 2010, Atty. Roque, through an intermediary, approached the Witness Protection Program (WPP) and asked for a meeting to introduce a probable witness in the Maguindanao massacre case. Atty. Roque initially wanted to meet the WPP at the UP Law Center. The WPP was concerned about security in UP for such an important meeting. Atty. Roque then suggested that they meet at a hotel near the airport. The WPP then informed Atty. Roque that the place is not secure, and recommended that they meet at the DOJ premises instead. Atty. Roque did not want to meet at the DOJ, and the WPP cancelled the meeting.

On March 10, 2010, we received a letter from Atty. Roque dated March 5, 2010 requesting the prosecution panel to consider the attached summary of probable testimony whom he did not yet identify as “Jessie”. (Attached as Annex “A” is a copy of Atty. Roque’s letter to the DOJ).

The day after, March 11, 2010, the panel of prosecutors replied to Atty. Roque’s letter (attached as Annex “B”). In our reply, we warned Atty. Roque regarding the sub judice rule on media interviews and that exposing “Jessie” for interviews actually place him in grave danger, as he is still without protection and not yet secured by the Witness Protection Program (WPP).

On March 12, 2010 at the DOJ, we met with Atty. Joel Ruiz Butuyan, the law partner of Atty. Roque, as well as Atty. Mackey Hernandez, the supposed counsel of “Jessie”. We asked Atty. Butuyan why they exposed “Jessie” to the press on March 9, 2010. Atty. Butuyan said that they wanted to generate media interest and that “Jessie” would feel safer with media knowing about his testimony. We repeated our warning that meeting in UP Law and holding a press conference in a hotel is hardly the safest place for “Jessie” and asked that he be brought to the DOJ for WPP evaluation instead. The panel also asked Atty. Hernandez about the personal circumstances of “Jessie”. Atty. Hernandez said that he has yet to meet “Jessie” to talk about his testimony and that it was just Atty. Roque who asked him to represent “Jessie”. Interestingly, during that meeting at the DOJ, Atty. Butuyan and Atty. Hernandez did not inform the prosecutors that “Jessie” did not want to go to the DOJ because its “high-ranking officials” are in “cahoots with the Ampatuans”.

At the end of the meeting, we acceded to the request to meet “Jessie” at a place to be decided by Atty. Roque’s group. A few days later, we were contacted by phone by Atty. Rommel Bagares, an associate of Atty. Roque. He told us that “Jessie” will meet the prosecutors in the general area of Makati. The place and the times were changed so often that the prosecutors, along with the Chief State Prosecutor and the WPP, decided that the meeting cannot be secured ahead and informed Atty. Bagares about it. A few days later, Atty. Bagares again contacted us with the request to meet “Jessie” again in the general area of Makati. Just like before, the exact places and times kept changing and the decision was made by the Chief State Prosecutor and the WPP to cancel the meeting.

We did not hear from Atty. Roque again regarding “Jessie”.

It should be stressed that it was not the DOJ who exposed “Jessie” in public. In fact, we did not even know his real name at the time of the meetings with the lawyers because they did not want to tell us. It was not the DOJ who arranged the press conference for “Jessie” and ignored the host of security implications that this entailed. The DOJ did not know his whereabouts as well as the fact that “Jessie” went back to Maguindanao because Atty. Roque did not inform us. Now, Atty. Roque conveniently blames the DOJ for “Jessie’s” death. Now, Atty. Roque uses his claim that “high ranking officials” of the DOJ are in “cahoots with the Ampatuans” as a convenient excuse for not bringing “Jessie” to the DOJ for WPP evaluation.

The panel of prosecutors and the WPP and the rest of the private prosecutors enjoy a close working relationship. It is Atty. Roque’s belligerent attitude to the DOJ (not just to the Secretary of Justice) that is the obstacle to a complete harmony between public and private prosecution. He files motions without the conforme of the Chief State Prosecutor, which is a requirement of the law, and independently acts without prior notice to the prosecutors. He even sued the Republic of the Philippines before an ASEAN forum, because of supposed government inaction on the case. Fortunately, this was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. He constantly attacks the DOJ in the press, when his energies would be better appreciated inside the courtroom. To recall, during the presentation of a crucial prosecution witness on January 20, 2010, he even left the courtroom in the middle of the hearing and instead conducted a press conference outside. It is interesting to know how his clients were better served that day outside rather than inside the courtroom.

A person cannot be considered a Maguindanao massacre witness just because he alleges that he is. The procedure for evaluating a witness is tedious and involves a careful analysis of all his allegations. It likewise involves a series of background checks to determine his credibility and to find out derogatory records. As a lawyer, Atty. Roque should be familiar with these fact checking. Conversely, a person cannot be described as a Maguindanao massacre witness just because Atty. Roque declares in a press conference that he is.

The DOJ is the primary prosecutorial arm of the Government. Whatever political motives are usually and conveniently attributed to its official actions, it is manned by professional career prosecutors. These prosecutors may not be of the profile, caliber and type of Atty. Roque. But DOJ prosecutors aim to serve the People, without agenda or motives, because that is their job description.

In Brookes Point Palawan, local Comelec officials plugged in the PCOS machines that would be used to count the votes on May 10th and took them through their paces. In the presence of representatives of local candidates, they filled out ten sample ballots and inserted them in the machines. Eight of them shaded the name of Baham Mitra, the candidate for governor. But when the PCOS machine tallied the votes, Mitra got zero votes.

In Sto Tomas, Batangas, representatives of the Liberal Party candidate for mayor filled out the ten ballots, voting for their own candidates. But the PCOS machine counted the voted in favor of the Nacionalista candidate.

In Pasay, representatives of the mayoral candidate complained of the same thing.

Different candidates, different political parties, different parts of the country; same problem.  PCOS machines are not properly counting the votes. As the reports flooded into the ABS-CBN newsroom, the Comelec–asked for an explanation–said it had to do with the thin sample paper. Somehow, the thinner paper was causing votes for one candidate to be counted for the other. Later on, Commissioner Gregorio Larrazabal would clarify that the paper used for the sample ballots is the same paper used for the real ballots.

Today, the Comelec announced the suspension of the tests.

This is not the same as the other problems seen during the previous tests.  Problems in transmission and the jamming of the PCOS machines were relatively minor and were solved in a few hours. For example, in Batanes last month, the Comelec technician didn’t know how to configure the machine that would transmit the vote results to Manila. But a tech savvy cameraman (ABS-CBN’s Val Cuenca, actually) figured out how to configure the machine and the votes were transmitted.

This problem is different. It’s not caused by the weather or the ignorance of a technician. And it’s not isolated.

With less than a week to go before these same PCOS machines are going to be used for the real thing this is the last thing we need if we want an orderly credible election. Its the last thing we need if we want a smooth turnover of power on June 30th. But if you want an excuse to stay in office, this could be exactly what you want.

But in this country of ours, the surreal is– more often than not–real.  Abcede did hold a press conference where he announced his intention  to settle the Marcos cases.

Its been called a midnight deal, but its not. As far as I know, a settlement has been agreed upon in principle about two years ago and that Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was just waiting for the right time to sign on the dotted line. With two months to go before she’s expected to step down and no assurance that she’ll be able to extend her term as planned, the Marcoses probably told her it was time to live up to her word. The deal–as I understand it– will leave the government with a portion of the identified Marcos assets.  In exchange it will not exercise any claims on any other assets that will be identifed after the settlement is reached. If this is correct, watch how billions of dollars in Marcos assets will magically be discovered once the deal is signed. When former national security adviser Jose Almonte launched an operation in 1986 to recover Marcos assets in Swiss bank accounts, he identified over $2 billion sitting in bank accounts. But his efforts to retrieve the money were apparently stymied by then-PCGG Chairman Jovito Salonga and then- executive secretary Joker Arroyo. Almonte and his team recovered $200 million, which left about $1.8 billion in the accounts in 1986. Almonte believes there were billions of dollars more on top of that initial $2 billion. If the settlement is finalized, the Marcoses will probably get all of this free and clear.  But right now the question that interests me more is this: what did Arroyo get in exchange?

Maybe I should have attended Abcede’s press conference. I’d ask Boy Abunda but I heard he didn’t show up either.

You are Ampatuan patriarch Andal.
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has bowed to international outrage and had you and over a hundred of your sons, nephews, and other relatives and loyal retainers arrested for mass murder. You, who were instrumental in Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s 2004 hook-or-by -crook election. And yet she has succumbed to international outrage and dared to detain you. Of course you’ve been assured by trusted intermediaries that this was temporary, and that Arroyo would find a way to get you out of this fix, but its been months and you and your family are still in jail.
Growing impatient, irritated, and perhaps a bit suspicious, you send word to Arroyo that if she doesn’t do something soon to get you out of this mess, you may be tempted to make trouble for her. Perhaps spill the beans on some of the dirt you have on her, particularly what you did for her in the 2004 election? Or maybe some other skeleton she has that you can rattle.
Word gets back to you that the message is received and to watch for development sin the next few days. It won’t all be resolved yet but a major sign of her intentions will be given. Enough for you to reconsider your threat to spill the beans on her.
Then comes Justice Secretary Alberto Agra, ordering the dropping of charges against your son Zaldy and nephew Akmad. You’re satisfied. At least for now.
Now, imagine you are Toto Mangundadatu.

Your wife and relatives have been massacred by the Ampatuans, but you have been assured that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will not allow this crime to go unpunished. After all, you have been an ally of hers for years and have never given her any trouble. As a sign of your faith in her, you have not bolted the Lakas Kampi party despite an earlier plan to join the Liberal Party. Of course you know that the Ampatuans are closer to her than you are but the gravity of their crime should force Arroyo to take action, and so far she has managed to put them in jail. Not to mention that you are aware of some skeletons in Arroyo’s closet and there is the implicit threat that if she bails the Ampatuans out you can always spill the beans on her.
Suddenly, Justice Secretary Al Agra drops charges against Zaldy and Akmad Ampatuan. To you it looks like Arroyo has succumbed to pressure from the other side.
Quickly you send through your intermedaries: reverse or undo Agra’s decision and remove the SOB or you will rattle whatever skeletons you have found in her closet.
Now imagine you are Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

You got the Ampatuans on one side, the Mangundadatus on the other, both threatening another political shitstorm unless you do what they say.
What do you do? Reach for that bottle of Tylenol.

Justice Secretary Alberto Agra is digging in his heels after he created a political firestorm by inexplicably dropping charges against two suspects in the Maguindanao massacre. The massacre of 58 people in November was so brazen, so brutal, and so shocking; and public reaction was so swift and universal that the Arroyo regime has no choice but to go after the suspects, despite the fact that the Ampatuan clan are Gloria Arroyo’s  most loyal and reliable allies.

From the start, there were doubts about how serious the Regime was in going after the Ampatuans. It went out of its way to charge them with rebellion, a crime that they did not commit. It declared martial law and dispensed with the issuance of warrants while it was gathering evidence, laying a legal ground for the courts to rule that the evidence is inadmissible.

In the meantime, witnesses have been systematically intimidated, threatened, and maybe even killed to weaken the case against the Ampatuans.

But it seems that all that groundwork was unnecessary because all the Regime needed to do was install a justice secretary that would simply drop the charges.   When I interviewed Agra on the Rundown he said his decision was based on his appreciation of the evidence. He said there was nothing to indicate that Zaldy and Akmad Ampatuan were present during the massacre or were part of the planning. He cited cellphone bills and fight manifests that showed they were not in Maguindanao at the time of the killings.  I asked if their absence at the crime scene meant they were not part of the planning. He said he had witnesses that said they were not. But there were also witnesses that claim they were. He said he believed the other witnesses more. What makes it even more unsettling is that Agra can choose at any time to “review” the evidence and order the charges dropped. He can do this any time.  Like magic, he can make the case go away. End of story.

Like the killings themselves, Agra’s decision to drop the charges was so brazen that even his own prosecutors had to wash their hands of the decision.  I think its impossible that a decision this controversial would be made by Agra on his own but when I asked him if he had “consulted” Malacanang, he said he didn’t.  But having observed the Regime for nearly a decade, I know that big decisions like this are not made by an acting secretary on his own. They are made  by the President.

When I was studying in Ateneo, I was taught that punishing someone when they do wrong not only serves as a disincentive for bad behavior, but it also reflects the broader values that a society believes in.  When you let someone off the hook after they have admitted wrongdoing,  you trivialize the wrongdoing and send a message to your community that there are no negative consequences for bad behavior.

In the case of Manny Pangilinan, he is a big supporter of the school, sharing his time, effort, and, yes, resources.  Does that give him a pass?  For some in the Ateneo community, yes.  But is that right? When the president of the university publicly advocates not punishing someone who was perfectly willing to be punished for doing something wrong, it sends the wrong signal to the students–that you can get away with it.

Presidential candidate Gilbert Teodoro’s got a problem. PaLaKa, the much vaunted political party that is supposed to be backing him is more focused at this point on getting Gloria Macapagal Arroyo elected Speaker of the House than it is in getting him elected president. The resources needed to win this campaign have been withheld from him and no resistance has been met by political butterflies who are now flocking to the Nacionalista party.

Despite his impressive resume and his obvious intelligence,  surveys have Teodoro at single digits—well below Noynoy Aquino, Manny Villar, and Joseph Estrada.  Its partly because he is not as familiar to the public as his three main rivals, but its also because he is the Adminisrtation candidate, and his assocaition with Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has turned off many people who would otherwise be squarely behind him.

Given Arroyo’s kiss of death, the only reason that any candidate would want her backing is because of the resources that she and the PaLaKa would presumably have at their disposal. Not just money but the ground troops that the local leaders in towns from Vigan to Maguindanao would be able to command. But with the money being spent on Arroyo’s bid for Congress and Speaker of the House the funds aren’t there; and no effort is being made to stop the exodus of people like Joe Zubiri, Chavit Singson, and other esteemed local leaders to other parties, most notably the Nacionalista Party.

Why is Teodoro being treated this way by his own patron and party?  Is it because they have given up on him? Have they decided to back someone else, as has been suggested by some quarters? Or does Arroyo have a plan to stay in power beyond June 30?  These explanations are speculative right now, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t plausible. Former national security adviser Jose Almonte, for one, doubts that Arroyo is seriously backing Teodoro.

Whatever the case may be, Teodoro is left with all the minuses of being Arroyo’s candidate and none of the pluses.  On his own, without the baggage of Gloria, he would have been a much more formidable candidate. But with barely a month to go before the election, his options are becoming narrower.

He said that martial law would be used to arrest the Ampatuan patriarch, Andal, Sr, for rebellion, and the evidence seized from the Ampatuans’ homes and offices would be used to secure an acquital. The conversation went something like this.

“An acquital?”, I asked.

“Yes. There’s no rebellion there. They were not rising up against Gloria. Rebellion is when you try to remove the duly constituted authority. The Ampatuans are doing nothing of the sort. Mass murder is not rebellion.”

“So why bother?” I asked.

He said they were doing it to make it appear that they were going after the Ampatuans but were actually giving them the legal basis to free themselves.  He said that the evidence gathered under martial law was done so without a warrant and that it would be deemed inadmissible. So any charges based on that evience would be dismissed.  Secondly, and more obvious, there was no rebellion. There was a massacre, but it was not a rebellion. Period. So how could they be found guilty of a crime they didn’t commit?

Interesting theory, I thought.  But Andal Ampatuan Jr, was being placed at the scene of the crime by witnesses, and he was charged with mass murder along with a few dozen others. How could they whitewash that away?

“They won’t. “ said my lawyer friend. “Junior will be the sacrifical lamb. You guys in the media have made so much noise and there has been so much international outrage over the killings that someone has to take one for the team.   Gloria has to send someone to jail. It’ll be Junior. Senior and  Zaldy (the other son who is ARMM governor)  will be tried separately and they’ll get off. But Junior will take the fall.”

It sounded a bit hard to believe, but as I thought about it, it began to seem kind of plausible.

“Just watch what happens. The next few months will prove I’m right.”

I ended the call.  My lawyer friend’s scenario bugged me a bit, but those concerns eventually were overtaken by the next news story, then there were the holidays, and the New Year, and life went on.

I didn’t completely forget my friend’s scenario. I would revisit the Maguindanao massacre every so often in a story, but nothing that would clearly point to his conspiracy theory.

Then today I saw this.

The rebellion case against former Maguindanao governor Andal Ampatuan, Sr. has been thrown out.  Judge Baclig said there wasn’t probable cause.

Yikes.

Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s longtime bodyguard, Delfin Bangit sits atop the chain of command of the Armed Forces.

Arroyo is a shoo in for Speaker of the House following her near certain win in the 2nd district of Pampanga.

And now she is set to appoint a loyal and pliant Chief Justice at the Supreme Court.

The appointment of General Delfin Bangit raised a few eyebrows but, lets face it…any president would want to choose a chief of staff of the Armed Forces that he or she would be comfortable with.  On its own, Bangit’s appointment shouldn’t be more alarming than the appointment of General Hermogenes Esperon a few years ago.

But then there’s the run for Congress. A clear sign that Arroyo does not intend to simply fade away.  With a barrage of tv ads and infomercials meant to establish her “legacy” (Ituwid Natin!), she has been campaigning around Pampanga for her son Mikey’s seat in Congress, but she’s also been traveling around the country campaigning to be speaker of the House.    If I’m not mistaken, the Lakas Kampi party is spending more on Arroyo’s bid for Congress than it is on Gilbert Teodoro’s presidential campaign.

As Speaker, with billions of pesos in resources at her disposal, and with four or five of her family joining her in the House,  Arroyo would remain a formidable political force with the potential power to impeach a recalcitrant president, and decide what bills get passed and what measures get blocked.

But what really takes the cake is the Supreme Court’s innovative reinterpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution clearly says that the president shall not make any appointments except temporary appointments in executive positions within 60 days before an election.  That provision has been backed up by precedent: In 1998, Fidel Ramos tried to appoint two judges to regional trial courts in Nueva Ecija and the Supreme Court, voting unanimously, nullified the appointments.  And yet, this Supreme Court–specifically Justice Lucas Bersamin–threw it all out and overturned the Constitution.  Such extraordinary action must require an  extraordinary motive.

I believe that Arroyo is once again moving pieces into place to try to extend her term of office.  Imagine if the Comelec announces that it cannot proclaim a new president by June 30.  Per the constitution, the order of succession would be the vice president, the senate president, and the speaker of the House, in that order. But with the terms of all of these officers having expired on 30 June, the country would be put in a situation not contemplated by the constitution…the terms of the old leaders have expired and no new leaders installed. There would be no legally constituted head of state or government. A perfect opening for the outgoing president–in this case Arroyo–to proclaim herself holdover president until a new president can be proclaimed.  Protests would follow,but thanks to Bangit, they would be quelled and the Armed Forces would remain loyal to her.  Lawyers would question her assumption of holdover powers and question its legality before the Supreme Court.  Thanks to this new decision the new Chief Justice would rule in her favor.   The end.

Or another scenario is that elections go through on the local level but fail on the national level. This means that new mayors, governors, and congressmen are   proclaimed but no new senators, president, and vice president would be proclaimed.  Following the line of succession, the acting president would be the Speaker of the House. Since the winners of congressional races were proclaimed, the House could convene and elect Arroyo speaker, and she would assume the position of acting president. The end.

It has always been Arroyo’s style to push the limits of public tolerance and back off when it has been reached. She tried to revise the constitution and got as far as convening the Abueva Commission and having it draft a new charter.  It was only when public anger rose that the Supreme Court stopped the charter change effort.

This time around, she has managed to declare her candidacy, ensure the loyalty of the AFP, and overturn a constitutional provision with hardly a peep from anyone except a few lawyers’ groups. There has not yet been enough pushback from the public for her to stop.  I think the next two to three months will indicate to her whether she pushes forward or backs off.  So far, the coast seems clear.