It might have been a ho-hum 13th day at the Impeachment Trial had not a senator-judge insisted on his right or privilege to examine or cross-examine Prosecution witness Clarissa Ocampo. But the decision of his colleagues to allow him, and naturally every other senator-judge, to throw questions at Ms. Ocampo became the trigger that brought about another explosive bombshell from the lady who has captured the imagination of the entire nation.
Initially, after the Senate formulated its rules for the Impeachment Trial of President Estrada, I had doubts about that particular rule allowing the senators-judges to personally ask questions of the witnesses. Now, as the Impeachment Trial progresses, I see that the rule was God-sent. Why? Because some senators-judges, through their clarificatory questions, have been able to elicit enlightening and vital facts from the witnesses – facts the Prosecution Panel failed to extract in their direct examination.
Let us take, for example, the question thrown by Senator-Judge Loren Legarda to Ms. Ocampo during the continuation of the witness’ testimony. Loren asked Ms. Ocampo why she decided to take the witness stand. The witness cited three reasons.
It was the third reason – the directive given her by then Equitable PCIBank chairman George Go to prepare a second set of trust agreement documents – that became the explosive highlight of the 13th session of the Impeachment Court. Ms. Ocampo’s answer to Loren’s question became the screaming headline in the following day’s newspapers and the banner story in all major television newscasts.
Why were some of the Investment Management Agreement (IMA) papers signed at the office of Defense counsel Estelito Mendoza on December 13, at the height of the Impeachment proceedings? Why there at Mendoza’s office, and not at the office of Equitable chairman George Go or at the office of controversial Jaime Dichaves? And who were inside Mendoza’s conference room at that time, aside from Go, Dichaves, and Mendoza himself? How long have they been there, before Ms. Ocampo arrived at what she previously thought was the office of Dichaves?
And why was Ms. Ocampo told by George Go to antedate the second set of documents to February 4, 2000, the same date when the first set of IMA papers were signed in Malacañang by Jose Velarde/Joseph Ejercito Estrada? Was there an attempt to have a cover-up? And is it true that Mendoza did not have any inkling of what was going on inside his private office? These are just some of the burning questions that demand answers, otherwise ugly speculations could arise about misconduct, malpractice, suppression of evidence, or obstruction of justice.
The revelation of Ms. Ocampo, as elicited by Senator-Judge Legarda, has fueled speculations that could very well affect the professional career of lawyer Mendoza. It opened a probable can of worms that touches at ethical issues involving the practice of the legal profession. The guessing game now is whether Mendoza, who has a towering stature as a barrister, can storm his own personal crisis caused by the disclosure of witness Ocampo.
Going back to the role of senators-judges as interpellators, some – like lawyers Aquilino Pimentel Jr, Raul Roco, Frank Drilon, Renato Cayetano, and Teofisto Guingona, and non-lawyers like Rodolfo Biazon and Juan Flavier – have asked questions that have been eye-openers to the millions of people monitoring the Impeachment proceedings. To many televiewers, these senators-judges’ mode of questioning has not been abrasive. And the lasting impression etched in the public mind is that they merely want to ferret out the truth.
In stark contrast, as magnified by the television camera, has been the posture of other senators-judges. The TV camera is a very cruel medium. Through its lens, it can capture the body language, the gnashing teeth, the sneer and the snort, the leer in the eyes of the interpellator, the venom in his or her mind, the bias in the heart. Yes, it is the magic of the television camera that has enabled the televiewers to virtually pierce the mind and heart of the senators-judges.
Another highlight of the 13th day of the Impeachment Trial was the shocking disclosure of Ms. Ocampo that Fernando Chua, who was representing President Estrada, asked her, during the first week of December, to "protect the President." This particular testimony was not elicited by the Prosecution but by Senator-Judge Renato Cayetano. Had the senators-judges been inhibited from personally throwing questions to the witnesses, these shocking revelations would not have seen the light of day.
What was touching was the second reason cited by Ms. Ocampo, in answer to Legarda’s query, why she decided to appear before the Impeachment Court. "Since there were only two of us who knew about the Jose Velarde account, I feared for my life and that of my family," Ms. Ocampo said. In other words, she was afraid that one dark day, she or a member of her family might find his or her name in the list of "missing" persons, a cruel way of gagging her from telling the world what she knew. Talking now, Ms. Ocampo apparently knew, could stop wicked and evil forces from pursuing their dastardly thing.
At this juncture of the Impeachment Trial, there seems no way to rebut Ms. Ocampo’s testimony, as corroborated by Equitable PCI Bank chief legal counsel Manuel Curato, that Jose Velarde and Joseph Ejercito Estrada are one and the same person. Apparently, the Defense Panel threw up its arms in surrender, by failing to cross-examine either Ms. Ocampo or lawyer Curato. And the Defense Panel’s only recourse now is to have the entire testimony of the two bank officials stricken off from the records of the Impeachment Trial. Such a move, if approved, could lead to hell breaking loose in this beleaguered country.
Since it can now be safely assumed that Jose Velarde and Joseph Estrada are one and the same person, a human-interest question has naturally surfaced. Why did Joseph Ejercito Estrada opt to use "Jose Velarde" as his alias? A college classmate of President Estrada at the old Polytechnic College of the Philippines, now known as Central College of the Philippines, a school right beside UERM Memorial Medical Center and the Immaculate Heart of Mary College at Aurora Boulevard, just a stone’s throw away from SM Centerpoint, provided me with an interesting clue.
My informant is Engr. Juanito "Johnny" P. Garcia, a retired traffic engineer in the United States where he lived and worked for 35 years and a classmate of Erap at PCP. Johnny has fond memories of "Joseph," who, even in his students days, was always a buddy and really helpful to close friends in need. Johnny Garcia’s recollections of their school days at CCP are worth writing about, just to give an idea as to why the name "Jose Velarde" probably became the President’s alias. Let me give space to Engr. Garcia’s account in tomorrow’s column.
My e-mail address:
jwalker@tri-isys.com