FOR all its claims of a resolute war against drugs and corruption, the Duterte administration seems to be showing the opposite with two recent questionable legal moves – the dropping of charges against several prominent suspected drug lords and the decision to put alleged pork scam mastermind Janet Lim Napoles under the Witness Protection Program with the end in view obviously of making her a state witness against several politicians.
A panel of prosecutors from the Department of Justice (DOJ) made public a resolution that was approved on Dec. 20, 2017 and made public only last Feb. 27 to throw out the complaint filed against Peter Lim, who was named by President Duterte himself as the country’s biggest drug lord when he launched his war against drug in 2016; Kerwin Espinosa, who confessed before a Senate panel bring a drug lord; convicted drug lord Peter Co; and several others believed involved in drug trading.
Critics correctly pointed out that the resolution shows the hypocrisy of Duterte’s vaunted drug war, which has killed thousands of poor drug users and small-time drug pushers without the benefit of due process, but has yet to bring down the bigtime drug dealers and smugglers. Instead of bringing the case to trial or at least ask the police to produce more evidence, the DOJ prosecutors simply decided to ignore the testimony of the witness, saying his testimony was not credible and could not be corroborated.
The DOJ even cautioned the police from “filing cases on the basis solely of an uncorroborated testimony of an evidently self-serving witness.” And yet, the DOJ gave credence to the testimonies of obviously self-serving witnesses — all convicted and jailed drug lords, including Peter Co and one other accused in the case dropped by the DOJ – to arrest and jail a sitting senator, Leila de Lima, on drug charges, for which De Lima is still awaiting trial after more than one year in detention.
Was the dismissal of this latest case part of the deal with Co and his co-accused? Will the others also later file testimonies against De Lima as part of the deal? These questions must be asked because there seems to be a conspiracy to use the testimonies of “self-serving” and not very credible witnesses against De Lima, the fiercest critic of Duterte’s drug war and who investigated Duterte while still Davao City Mayor for his role in the much feared Davao Death Squad.
It must also be pointed out that the same panel of prosecutors was responsible for the dropping of charges against customs officials charged in the P6.4-billion shabu smuggling scandal whose “not credible and self-serving” witness (at least according to the prosecutors) had also implicated Duterte’s son, erstwhile Davao City Vice Mayor Paolo Duterte, in the shabu case.
It must also be pointed out that in declaring Peter Lim as the country’s biggest drug lord, Duterte threatened to shoot him on sight himself, but appeared to soften his stand after photos of him and Lim as co-sponsors in a wedding appeared on various newspapers.
In both the cases against drug lords and customs officials, the Senate blue ribbon committee, headed by Sen. Dick Gordon, had recommended the filing of criminal charges against the accused after lengthy hearings, where Espinosa confessed to being a drug lord and even narrated how he dealt some of the transactions.
Gordon, who was also infuriated with the earlier dismissal of charges in the shabu smuggling case along with several other senators, demanded that Aguirre explain why the charges were dropped.
The President, at least according to sources close to Duterte, was reportedly so infuriated with the dropping of the cases that he punched the wall and threatened to fire Aguirre if Lim and company were set free. Aguirre said the DOJ would review the prosecutors’ resolution.
Some sectors, however, raised doubts on the punching-the-wall report because it seemed unlikely that in the three months between its approval by the Prosecutor General on Dec. 20 last year and the actual announcement last Feb. 27, the resolution was kept from either Aguirre or Duterte. With the impact it would cause on the credibility of Duterte’s drug war, it seemed very unlikely that the prosecutors and Aguirre would throw caution to the wind and earn the ire of the President.
In a clear case of wag-the-dog action, the DOJ announced the acceptance of Napoles into the Witness Protection Program the next day or so, apparently hoping that the new bombshell would relegate to the background the dismissal of charges against the drug lords just like the dismissal of the charges against the customs officials and others involved in the P6.4-billion shabu smuggling case.
Indeed, the granting of witness protection to Napoles sparked outrage and distracted public attention from the dropping of the case against the drug lords. The witness protection law states that the “most guilty” cannot become state witness. In the case of Napoles, it’s like Al Capone being granted immunity and state protection in exchange for testimony against the corrupt politicians and policemen in the crime lord’s payroll.
It’s sending the wrong signal to perpetrators of scams that as long as they are willing to name their accessories, they can go scot-free and skim the government of the people’s money, in the same manner that drug lords won’t be touched as long as they are willing to implicate opposition leaders in a crime.
Where’s the logic in that? In the same manner, where’s the logic and justice in killing thousands of drug users and small time drug pushers from the country’ slum areas if they wouldn’t touch drug and other crime lords living in luxury?
The granting of witness protection to Napoles is evidently the final step to making Napoles the state witness against mostly opposition politicians. The path to this was first opened in May last year when after the Court of Appeals overturned the conviction of Napoles on the charge that he abducted and held hostage his first cousin, BenHur Luy, Napoles’ erstwhile assistant and principal prosecution witness in the plunder case against her.
The CA decision came after Solicitor General Jose Calida, the man who was supposed to prosecute Napoles, instead asked the appellate court to overturn the decision, again, for lack of evidence.
Why the Office of the Solicitor General would file such a manifestation was difficult to comprehend even for top legal experts. Five legal experts interviewed by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) described the move of the OSG under Duterte as “dangerous,” “alarming” and “shocking.”
The PCIJ report also noted: “Interestingly, just weeks before Napoles’ lawyers filed her “reply brief” in September 2016, President Duterte himself had brought up the notorious businesswoman’s case at a press conference in Davao City.”
Duterte was quoted as having said that the Napoles case should be revisited. “The Napoles case should deserve a second look,” Duterte said, “for it also involves corruption and (Senator Leila) de Lima.” Hmmm, interesting.
The President’s mention of De Lima as a target for the Napoles case revisit casts doubt on his sincerity in going after all those involved in the pork barrel scam. Many suspect with good reason that Napoles would be used to go after De Lima and other leading members of the opposition Liberal Party.
De Lima had said in the past that she rejected Napoles as a state witness because when asked by DOJ investigators to name the legislators involved in the pork scam, Napoles asked them instead who among the senators and congressmen did they want included in the list.
How can the prosecutors depend on a woman who is obviously willing to make false testimony to save her own skin? How can the judge believe a woman who boasted to her associates that as long as there is government, there is money to be made?
As the state prosecutors warned in dropping the case against the drug lords: the state should avoid filing cases on the basis solely of an uncorroborated testimony of an evidently non-credible and self-serving witness.”
In this instance, Napoles would hardly be credible and would obviously be self-serving as a witness. Why give her state witness status then?
(valabelgas@aol.com)
