|
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Gonzalez: ‘Not a threat but a statement of fact’
By Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez
THE following is a letter from Department of Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzales to Senate President Franklin Drilon, on the alleged issue of the former “intimidating witnesses” in the Senate inquiry on jueteng.
May I clarify the issue raised against me particularly that I am “intimidating witnesses” in the jueteng probe to discourage them from appearing in the Senate.
For the record, the very morning when the Philippine Daily Inquirer story broke into headlines, I was ordered by Her Excellency President Arroyo, to investigate, saying: “Let the chips fall where they may.” Since then, I have not received any other instructions from the President.
I immediately ordered the NBI to make background checks and gather information regarding the names mentioned in the Inquirer story. I also wrote the editor of the Inquirer asking to be furnished with whatever evidence is in their possession and even suggested that when we start the investigation, the Editor can be present or a lawyer of her choice, to ensure transparency of the proceedings. I have not received any answer so far from the paper.
I formed a panel to conduct the investigation composed of all the three
(3) DOJ undersecretaries including Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito
Zuńo, and myself as chairman of the panel. Our investigation will be done in three (3) stages: (1) fact-finding or case build-up in order to establish probable cause; (2) formal preliminary investigation is required under Rule 112 of the Rules of Court; and (3) filing by the prosecution.
Our first resource person was Archbishop Oscar Cruz who voluntarily came and submitted to us a list of supposed jueteng lords, and another list of those who are allegedly receiving payolas, some of whom are public officials. But the good Archbishop informed the panel that all the information he has are “second hand” and there is nothing which linked the First Family to the scandal. However, Archbishop Cruz was interviewed by media in an exclusive manner and was quoted as saying that he has confidence in the objectivity of the DOJ panel, otherwise “I would not have come here.” He also assured our panel of his full support and cooperation.
We also invited PNP Chief Arturo Lomibao who submitted to us a long list of people alleged to be involved in jueteng operations. But no one in Chief Lomibao’s list is identified as a public official. Gov. Grace Cielo M. Padaca of Isabela was also invited and she promised to come. Gov. Padaca was quoted in the Inquirer as admitting rampant jueteng operations in her province, and town mayors are involved. I have also invited Mayor Tirso Lacanilao of Apalit, Pampanga, who has made admission that he was receiving payola money from jueteng and implicated some media personalities who were reported to be conduits of jueteng lords in Metro Manila.
We are about to start inviting the governors mentioned in the Inquirer story.
I assure you Mr. Senate President that we are conducting an honest-to-goodness investigation and this is the reason why I placed the three
(3) DOJ undersecretaries in the panel, two of whom are not my appointees, plus the Chief State Prosecutor who is a career official in the Prosecution service. I am quite confident that these people are known to you since you were the Secretary of Justice. The moment we reach the preliminary investigation stage, we would be happy to have a lawyer from the Senate to observe our proceedings, also representatives from media and non-governmental organizations.
On the matter of my alleged “threat to whistle blowers,” please allow me to state how this story broke into print because I did not volunteer my opinion.
After our meeting with Archbishop Cruz who admitted to media that his information are “second hand,” I was asked by members of media what the liabilities of witnesses are who are themselves involved in jueteng, and if found that they are not telling the truth. I told them that my interpretation of the laws applicable here can still make them liable either as principals, accomplices, or accessories, and also for perjury or libel, as the case may be. These were my statements which were construed as “threatening witnesses.” In fact, when the Honorable Senator Ping Lacson and I had a dialogue over Dong Puno’s “Viewpoint” program, I also explained my position to him. But the senator was relying in Section 8 and Section 10 of RA 9287 which provides for immunity of witnesses.
However, I told the senator that immunity is not absolute because the very same Section requires that the provision should be taken together with the Rules of Court and PD 1732. In the Rules of Court, we are not talking of immunity but discharge of the accused as state witness under
Rule 119, and there are five (5) qualifications to be a state witness under Sec. 17 of Rule 119:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said accused;
(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
This can only be done after the accused has already testified because
Section 17 states: “...after requiring the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the discharge...” The granting of immunity cannot be done prior to his testimony and therefore, he must first be charged, and then testify. In Section 5 of PD 1732, it is very explicit: “No witness shall be exempt from prosecution of perjury of contempt...”
Mr. Senate President, I respect the position of the Senate but I respectfully disagree that the immunity can be given before the testimony.
Otherwise, it will be like granting amnesty to the accused which cannot be done without the concurrence of the President and Congress.
Furthermore, I respectfully submit that whatever immunity may be extended, that immunity cannot be more than the immunity that members of Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) enjoy under the Constitution. The immunity under section 11 of Article 6 of the Constitution covers only offenses punishable by not more than six (6) years imprisonment, and immunity form arrest while Congress is in session. But the penalty for maintainers, managers or operators which Mr. Mayor admits to be, is at least 12 years and one day to 14 years; and if he is a financier or capitalist, 14 years and one day to 16 years. Granting his immunity for such acts would be placing him in a better position than Senators or Congressmen.
I never had any hidden agenda such as “threatening witnesses” when I answered question of media. In fact, I thought that I was enlightening our Honorable Senators that they should not grant immunity which would be better than the immunity granted by the Constitution to Members of Congress. I never gave them a threat but a statement of fact based on my knowledge and interpretation of the law. But I think the best proof that my statement has not threatened witnesses is the testimony of Mr.
Mayor and the eight (8) other witnesses who are undaunted by these issues.
It is absurd to make every whistle blower a state witness otherwise, all guilty persons will just offer to testify and get away with their crimes.
Mr. Senate President, I respect the position of the Senate. I hope that you can concede good faith to me because I will do my duty as God gave me the light to do my duty. If my statements offended the Members of the Senate committee, I deeply regret that. I assure you that my actions and statements were made in good faith.
I hope this clarifies the issues and let me thank you for your understanding.
(June 9, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
|
