Sending the wrong message

FRONTLINE

Ninez Cacho-Olivares

05/22/2008

By depriving its witnesses of their security, the Senate has given the clear signal that it can’t be trusted to protect the whistle-blowers, the result of which, of course, is that eventually, the Senate will be left without any witnesses or resource persons who would risk testifying to the truth during any Senate investigative hearing.

It takes a lot of courage and a lot of risks involved for a witness to come forward, especially if his testimony puts to risk not only his and his family’s security and his job but also his life. The only thing that could make him testify before Congress is for the body to provide him some kind of security.

Obviously, any witness that will come forward to testify against a powerful administration will be expected to be provided the protection he needs, precisely because the witness is a witness against the administration.

Why then would the Senate — or at least some senators who quickly offer the protection of the Senate to a witness, suddenly make a volte face, complain about the expenses being incurred and even withdraw the security escorts of these witnesses, after their testimonies?

One can understand administration allies in the Senate questioning the expenses incurred by the Senate in providing security and meals for the witnesses deemed to be hostile to the administration. Obviously, it is to the interest of their patroness in Malacañang to put a stop to all these hearings that impact negatively on Gloria and her administration. But for the others to go along with this idea of stripping witnesses of their security escorts really smacks of bad faith.

Already, the Senate blue ribbon committee chairman made the big mistake earlier of announcing that his panel would wrap up the ZTE-NBN hearings and come up with a report, but not without first stating that there is no direct evidence linking Gloria to the scam.

There was still the issue of the final Supreme Court ruling on the executive privilege and coming up with such a position only gives the justices the impression that it doesn’t really matter to the senators if they lose this case.

But after getting flak for stating this, the blue ribbon chief claimed he was misquoted by the media, then said that the probe will continue, when another witness surfaces.

Almost on cue, opposition Vice Gov. Rolex Sulpico, a former congressman, emerges with a witness in tow, along with pictures of a golf game in Shenzhen, China with Gloria and the ZTE officials. Then after a week of titillating the public, he suddenly tells media that the witness has gone missing.

Question: Why did not the Senate panels schedule a hearing immediately to ensure that the witness would testify immediately, knowing that if this drags on, more powerful forces would be working on the witness, or the witness could change his mind about testifying, with or without any Malacañang pressure?

Question: Knowing that the witness — if the account of Sulpico is genuine and not done for political play and titillation — has come forward, at least in the media — why come up suddenly with the issue of removing the security detail of the earlier whistleblowers, as senators must know that such a position would scare off the witnesses — if, of course, these witnesses are genuine whistle-blowers?

If the Senate has no budget for these security details for witnesses, then it has no business offering witnesses protective custody in the first place. For that matter, if the body can’t provide the protection the witness seeks, then it should not even bother to summon such witnesses to its hearings because without guaranteeing a witness his protection, it would be stupid of him to lay his life on the line to testify against a powerful chief executive.

For a time, the Filipino people, in their search for truth, looked to the Senate as their last hope, since the Catholic Church hierarchy itself junked the idea of holding Gloria Arroyo and her cohorts accountable to the people, and continued to support her and her government, despite their being called “morally bankrupt,” and despite their knowing she had lied, cheated and stolen all these years in the presidential office.

But it looks like the Senate has taken the path of the bishops who see no evil, hear no evil and say no evil.

Back to top

For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
The Daily Tribune © 2006