What was that again? - My Viewpoint

Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Perfecto Yasay Jr. sounded like he had launched a verbal intercontinental ballistic missile when he said, and I quote verbatim from the videotaped sound bite: "He told me to specifically clear individuals so far as the investigation was concerned. He specifically gave me instructions to clear Mr. Dante Tan of any wrongdoing." The "he" Mr. Yasay was referring to was, specifically, no less than President Joseph Estrada.

Within hours of making that statement under oath at a hearing before a Senate committee, Yasay was accused of being a "consistent liar," of flip-flopping and of perpetrating a "naked blackmail attempt." Most of the reactions were predictably partisan, except that no one, not even the political opposition, is about to begin impeachment proceedings against the President.

The biggest problem here is to divine exactly what Yasay meant. The problem is not what he said. The videotape is clear and irrefutable. But it is Yasay himself who says that he did not mean what he appeared to mean by his statement. Check that: He says he's not retracting what he said. On the other hand, he "clarifies" that he was not given a direct order to clear Tan. Mr. Yasay is breaking new lexical ground by appearing to make a subtle distinction between a "specific instruction" and a "direct order."

You can't blame people for thinking that Yasay's ICBM has turned into a Scud, which, incidentally, rhymes with "dud." He insists that the President did make those telephone calls. He maintains that he felt "pressured." But then he professes to fully understand the sentiments the President was trying to express. He pleads that the telephone calls, and the statements in question -- the President's as well as his -- should be put in context. Yeah? What "context" is that? Yasay is quoted by our reporter Rocel Felix to have declared: "The President honestly believed that Tan is innocent of charges of inside trading and price manipulation, and it is in that context that he expressed his wish that he be cleared, along with BW." In another newspaper, the SEC chief is also quoted as saying, "The issue is not so much on what the President exactly said, but more on the intention of his call." So, Jun, what in your view was the President's intention? And how does knowing that intention clarify "the issue," considering your continuing assertion that you felt "pressured" by the President's calls, including the one in which he expressed the wish that Tan should be cleared because the latter was not only innocent, he was in fact a "victim."

Setting aside for now the puzzlement that many feel over how Mr. Tan could be victimized by his own BW operation, the simple question to Mr. Yasay has to be: Were you, or were you not, given a direct order, or a specific instruction, or a broad hint, or a mischievous wink of Presidential eyes, or a Delphic oracle to the effect that Dante Tan should be cleared of any wrongdoing in the BW investigation?

Before Yasay's "clarifications," the nature of any Malacañang pressure, if there was indeed any such pressure, was relatively easy to understand since most people weren't born yesterday. But his subsequent attempts at clarification, far from illuminating the situation and enabling us to see what really went on, only deepen the mystery.

Jun Yasay is probably one of our most articulate, I would even say polished, men in government. I refuse to believe he is incapable of saying what he means, clearly and distinctly. He was two choices: First, he can put an end to all the confusion by telling us the real unembellished story. He realizes, of course, the political firestorm that would unleash but his supporters are confident he has the intestinal fortitude to withstand any test.

Or, second, he can swallow his pride, admit his mouth ran faster than his brain and that he may have misled or exaggerated. That would be the cue for all those who were about to canonize him to abandon the quest and continue the search for other heroes and saints. Moreover, in the latter case, he would also clearly owe the President an apology, as well as a letter submitting his immediate and irrevocable resignation. His insistence on waiting for the passage of the new Securities Act would not be sufficient reason for him to stay one minute longer.

Which will it be, Mr. Yasay?