Quo vadis, DOJ?

The Nov. 11th issue of The Philippine STAR first called public attention to the existence of a Two Million Dollar Man. This was followed by Aksyon Demokratiko Rep. Wilfredo Villarama’s privilege speech demanding an investigation of the case. Villarama went as far as presenting public bank documents concerning the transfer of the alleged $2 million but never identified who the alleged cabinet official was. Now, independent Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez has again in a privilege speech accused Justice Secretary Hernando Perez of being the million-dollar cabinet official and claims that said money was extorted from him.

All this happened when Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. was pressing the Senate to look into the allegation of Sen. Panfilo Lacson that $14 million was paid to a certain government official who allegedly signed a power contract with an Argentine firm that former President Estrada had shelved, but which Perez signed four days after President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took power.

In making his accusation, Rep. Jimenez has implicated himself. It is unquestionably the actuation of a desperate man. It could be a ploy to delay his extradition to the United States. But he has supported his claim with bank documents concerning the transfer of the $2 million alleged extortion money. The documents purportedly show that the $2 million was wired through the Trade and Commerce Bank in Uruguay. Then it passed through Cayman Islands BWI and Chase Manhattan Bank in New York that issued instructions depositing the $2 million in account number HO 13706 in Coutts Bank, Hong Kong. It is true that if you had received such money, there is a bank secrecy law that says that not even the courts can compel a bank to reveal the accounts of depositors. But a depositor can waive that right if only to prove that you are not the $2-million man. The mere ownership of $2 million is not a crime. It can only convict you if, first, the date of the deposit tallies perfectly with the time of the alleged extortions; second, if you cannot account where the money came from. But, we repeat, courts have to abide by the bank secrecy law.

The Jimenez-Perez controversy is one that will affect the very image of the Department of Justice. The purpose of justice is to insure that no one shall suffer wrong and that public good prevails. It is the very purpose of government. Definitely, the accusation of Mark Jimenez should be investigated. But it must be a fair and impartial investigation. The decision must be truth in action. Otherwise, the public may end up agreeing with Clarence Darrow who said, "There is no such thing as justice – in or out of court."