Nalzaro: Axed NBI chief, inexperienced prosecutors

Saturday, January 21, 2012

PRESIDENT Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III has sacked National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) director Magtanggol Gatdula after he was linked to a kidnap-extortion case that a panel of the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigated. NBI, the country's premier investigating agency, is under the DOJ.

The case stemmed from the alleged abduction of a Japanese woman, Noriyo Ohara. Though reports did not specifically mention the circumstances behind Ohara's arrest, she was said to have been nabbed and illegally detained by NBI elements. The arresting officers then allegedly demanded a big amount of money in exchange for her release

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

Gatdula did not have direct participation in the abduction but findings by the DOJ team say he connived with his men.

This is a good move by the President in line with his anti-corruption campaign. There are many shenanigans in that bureau. Some of its agents are involved in protection rackets and conduct illegal searches and arrests for personal gain.

It is easy, though, for the President to fire Gatdula, a retired police general, because he is a political appointee. But he should not only be fired. The DOJ should also file criminal charges against him and his cohorts to set an example.

***

I don't know the backgrounds, especially their experience in lawyering, of the congressmen composing the prosecution panel in the impeachment case against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. But in the ongoing trial, they look like neophytes and seem inexperienced in court battles.

They may be the brightest congressmen-lawyers in the House of Representatives, but they are not good trial lawyers or may have already forgotten techniques in court battles. A lawyer/columnist jokingly told me that if these congressmen-prosecutors apply in his law firm, he would not accept them.

The congressmen-prosecutors committed blunders and lapses in the first week of the trial. They even admitted that and asked for understanding by the public. What are they trying to project? That they need public sympathy?

The impeachment case, however, is a political exercise and does not need public sympathy. Prosecutors should present not just a preponderance of evidence but substantial and convincing evidence that would convince the impeachment court (Senate) to convict Corona.

The defense panel led by retired Supreme Court associate justice and former justice secretary Serafin Cuevas are seasoned and veteran lawyers. They argue with sense. If the congressmen-prosecutors won’t change their strategy and tactic, or if they don’t take the Articles of Impeachment seriously, I am afraid Corona will be acquitted.

The prosecution and the defense are now arguing one of the eight Articles of Impeachment filed against the chief magistrate. This is about Corona's non-disclosure of his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN).

What the prosecutors need here are documentary evidence. This is unlike the other articles that accused Corona of partiality and bias for former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who appointed him to the position.

How can one determine partiality and bias? Maybe, through Corona’s acts. Prosecutors will have to scan SC decisions and resolutions and find out how Corona voted. Again, this is a matter of documentary evidence.

But how can they say that Corona favored Arroyo when decisions were not individual acts? It was done by the majority. Are we also going to impeach the other Supreme Court justices who favored Arroyo? O ila ba kahang ablihan ang kasingkasing ni Corona aron ilang mahibaw-an kon aduna ba kini pagpihig.