|
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Cabaero: No way, Jose
By Nini B. Cabaero
Beyond 30
The Jose Pidal case has caught the nation’s attention because of the nature of the accusations, the attacker and the target and the play it got in media, in particular the live coverage by the local cable news.
It was a story with a beginning, with juicy details, and then, nothing. Bitin. Because at that point, the man who claimed to be Jose Pidal surprisingly decided to invoke his right to privacy.
Ignacio Arroyo, younger brother of First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, came forward as the owner of the Jose Pidal bank accounts. He said he used a fictitious name for security reasons or to prevent getting the attention of criminals.
The story began with a privilege speech by Sen. Panfilo Lacson over the Jose Pidal accounts. Lacson said the President’s husband held the accounts in the name of Jose Pidal. The accounts were used to launder money, possibly undeclared campaign contributions to President Arroyo, Lacson added.
Ignacio Arroyo then stepped out in public to own the accounts. It was because of his voluntary act of announcing to media that he was Jose Pidal that the Senate issued an invitation for him to appear in the hearing. During the Senate hearing, Ignacio Arroyo refused to answer questions and invoked instead his right to privacy. He said he was not a government official but a private individual whose right to privacy cannot be violated. For example, only the court under the Bank Secrecy Law can order disclosure of details of the Jose Pidal accounts.
Private persons, I agree, have the right to be protected from the prying eyes of government and of media. This is the reason media cannot perform its watchdog role on private individuals unless public interest is involved.
Ignacio Arroyo is a private individual all right even as brother-in-law of the President. The Senate cannot scrutinize his actions in the same way it can a government official, he said. But there must be something wrong to his claim to privacy after all the racket made in public on the Jose Pidal bank accounts.
Ignacio Arroyo lost his claim to privacy from the time he stepped forward and volunteered the information that he was Jose Pidal. He invited inquiry into his private dealings when he claimed ownership of the accounts.
The Senate investigating body has postponed hearings on the Jose Pidal controversy to allow it more time to study Ignacio Arroyo’s claim to privacy. Lawyers have different interpretations about the validity of his claim. The Constitution does not provide for a “right to privacy” but it protects the person’s right against self-incrimination. Other laws also incorporate a guarantee on a person’s privacy.
One good thing about Ignacio Arroyo’s refusal to answer the senators’ questions is that the matter will finally go to where the charges should have been lodged in the first place — the courts.
Let the courts affirm Ignacio Arroyo’s claim to privacy. Let the courts take over the investigation into Lacson’s allegations against Mike Arroyo for money laundering and others. The protagonists in the Jose Pidal controversy would do the country well to bring these matters to the proper venue.
(Ms. Cabaero can be reached at e-mail address ninicab@sunstar.com.ph)
(September 16, 2003 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[ return
to top ]
[ home
]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
