How was Tuason as witness?-A A +A
Sunday, February 16, 2014
MOST everyone weighed in with his idea of how Ruby Chan Tuason, former socialite and confessed money courier of “pork barrel queen” Janet Lim-Napoles, fared in her Senate testimony last Feb. 13.
The published opinions, interesting as they are, may not be all nobly motivated.
Sen. Miriam Santiago repeatedly praised Ruby as a “perfect witness” only to say later that the bagwoman didn’t tell everything about Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile. Ruby handed the cash to Jinggoy himself but, she said, she gave JPE’s cut not to Enrile but to his chief of staff Gigi Reyes. Sen. Antonio Trillanes said Tuason covered up for Enrile.
Blue Ribbon chief Sen. Teofisto Guingona, backing Justice Secretary Leila de Lima’s preview of the testimony as “slam dunk of evidence,” said it was a “three-pointer and buzzer beater,” the kind of finish that would send a basketball audience leaping and screaming or keep them shell-shocked on their seats.
Jinggoy, continuing the sports lingo but rejecting raves, said it was an “offensive foul.”
Miriam and Trillanes have their enmity towards Enrile; Guingona, his own and the Senate’s reputation to hoist; and Jinggoy, whatever left of his public image to shield.
Most of us bystanders take side against the apparent thieves, the perceived bad guys.
But we might see the pointlessness of any debate over Tuason’s testimony.
What Ruby said will have little influence on future legislation or the decision of ombudsman and/or Sandiganbayan.
But the public may have already convicted Janet and the two senators and, in its mind, even set up the lynching.
Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on February 17, 2014.