GOTCHA By Jarius Bondoc (The Philippine Star) Updated December 20, 2010 Former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo calls “irregular” the plea bargain of Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia from plunder to two lesser offenses. The sneaky bargaining is a betrayal of public trust, he says, for which successor Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez can be impeached. As for Gutierrez’s subalterns, he adds, the President can fire them for the same breach.
Lamenting that the Ombudsman weakened the justice system with the deal, Marcelo enumerates several reasons for the illegality:
• Rules of Court allow plea-bargaining only before the start of trial or presentation of prosecution evidence. In Garcia’s plunder case, Marcelo says, trial began four years back. Before that, Ombudsman prosecutors had determined probable cause, that Garcia is likely guilty of plunder. Too, the prosecutors had rested their case more than a year ago upon completion of evidence offer. At this point, Garcia should be rebutting their evidence, not cutting a deal with them. Marcelo cites the plea bargain of Charlie “Atong” Ang, co-accused of ex-President Joseph Estrada in plunder in 2001. Ang had fled to America, so was not arraigned with the principal. Extradited, Ang instantly offered additional evidence against Estrada. In exchange, he was let to plead guilty to a lesser offense of conspiring to divert P130 million in tobacco taxes.
• Marcelo debunks the Ombudsman prosecutors’ justification for the late plea bargain. The latter cited the Supreme Court ruling in People of the Philippines v. Mamarion — that plea bargain could be done anytime before a court renders a verdict. Marcelo says it applies only to accessories, not to principal accused like Garcia. Allowing lesser confederates to plea-bargain, he says, assures justice in the agreed admission of guilt to a lesser offense. Again citing Estrada’s plunder case, Marcelo recalls that Ang’s confession and new evidence helped to convict the principal. Likewise, Ang was made to restitute the State P25 million for his admitted offense.
• Prosecutors were about to score a “sure win,” Marcelo says, so there was no need for a plea bargain. After the submission of prosecution evidence, all Garcia did, instead of rebutting, was file a demurrer to dismiss the case. Rejected by the Sandiganbayan, he appealed to the Supreme Court twice. The high court too rebuffed him and ordered the anti-graft court to continue trial. Garcia then resorted to the plea bargain. In an earlier civil case for forfeiture of his unexplained wealth, Garcia had lost for failing to contravene the evidence. Like in the plunder case, he tried to delay his defense presentation, until deadlines lapsed.
• Marcelo says that, assuming a plea bargain is allowable this late in the day, the prosecutors nonetheless missed on one requisite. They did not seek approval of the aggrieved parties. In Garcia’s case, these are the Department of National Defense, and Armed Forces Commander-in-Chief Noynoy Aquino. Marcelo and then-Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio had built up the case against Garcia in 2004. They found then that the military comptroller had filched his unexplained wealth of P303.2 million from DND and AFP contracts and supplies.
• Marcelo belies belated claims that the P303.2 million is bloated. The prosecutors said they might as well settle for the P135.4 million that Garcia will surrender under the plea deal, or else be unable to collect anything. Marcelo counters that Garcia’s assets already were forfeited by his default in the civil case. The P303.2 million was the assessed value of residences, commercial buildings, farms, resorts, and vehicles in the Philippines, two condos in New York City, and a house in Ohio. Added to these were millions of pesos and dollars in bank deposits. By contrast, he says, the Ombudsman continues to hide details of the plea bargain. So there’s no telling if the P135.4 million is complete or also a bargain.
Sources at the Office of the Ombudsman had tipped off this writer in September that a secret deal was filed with the Sandiganbayan in late 2009. Both the court and the Ombudsman withheld copies. Marcelo asks why the plea bargain suddenly was made last Thursday, when public attention was on the sensational acquittal of the Vizconde massacre convicts.
The former Ombudsman says he and Villa-Ignacio will write Aquino to have the Solicitor General review the plea bargain. “It is an affront on the President’s declared war against corruption,” he moans.
* * *
Not a few readers were intrigued by my mention Friday of “face-giving” in Asian-style diplomacy. It was in relation to Malaysian envoy Datuk Othman’s marring of Philippine government talks with Moro separatists.
Actually face-giving, for face-saving, is a common tool of diplomacy. Stella Ting-Toomey, top scholar of “face theory,” advises negotiators to understand face-giving and face-saving intuitively, intellectually, and diplomatically. Among many examples, she cites the 1962 Cuban crisis when Kennedy and Khrushchev struggled for a peaceful option without losing face and while preserving their countries’ dignity. The key was to accord one another credibility and honor in negotiation. Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson’s “Politeness Theory” holds that guarding against loss of face can become so big that it swamps core issues at stake.
Bumbling Othman refuses to be replaced as peace talks facilitator. He caused his Prime Minister Najib Razak to insultingly reject President Aquino request for another Malaysian mediator. Najib’s chief political operator (election cheater?) in Sabah, Othman could have voluntarily left instead of fomenting confrontation.
* * *
“The war ended but the scars remained to remind us it is far from ended.” Shafts of Light, Fr. Guido Arguelles, SJ
* * *
E-mail: jariusbondoc@workmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment