Cancel these hearings? No way! To begin with, the Congress has real meat here to aid them in legislation, something which in other hearings has been at best debatable. In addition, like other inquiries in aid of legislation, the goal here is not to come up with hard evidence to cause the prosecution of any culprits that are exposed.
In the past, our agile legislators have said that prosecution is not their job, that it’s up to the Department of Justice or the Ombudsman to file the appropriate cases in court. That is, of course, absolutely correct.
The same principle can be applied in the present inquiries. All four investigations, two in the Senate and two in the House, will unravel data and information which do not rise to the level of evidence admissible in court That does not mean the testimonies of witnesses are worthless. But at the very least, the information should be useful for legislation which, for the first time in our history, will treat the jueteng problem not only as an enforcement matter but also as a political and sociological phenomenon.
Witness Mayor mentioned three areas – the provinces of Albay and Pangasinan, and the city of Baguio – as places where he was a jueteng operator. He says that he dealt not with political personalities themselves but with their "bagmen." He admits that he might have met with some of the personalities, such as current Philippine National Police chief Art Lomibao, but did not specifically discuss jueteng, much less official protection for the illegal gambling operation.
Many of the Senators were obviously trying to get the witness Wilfredo Mayor to give more specific testimony to legally nail certain individuals mentioned in terms of actual involvement in or protection of jueteng. Among the individuals mentioned were governors, mayors, congressmen, police regional directors, local police chiefs and, sadly, local media.
Mayor repeatedly answered that he dealt only through "bagmen," never with the principals they claimed to represent. Some of the Senators evidently thought that that affected his credibility. Not necessarily. While the public officials mentioned are entitled to answer all the allegations or innuendoes against them, the testimony of Mayor cannot be dismissed outright simply because he cannot be more specific.
The witness Mayor’s testimony confirms the conventional wisdom, even the perception, about jueteng’s durability and the extent of the pervasive official corruption it engenders. He also has a particularly perceptive statement: All the bagmen "delivered." Whenever they were taken care of, jueteng was invariably allowed to operate peacefully and without harassment from law enforcers or politicians. This happened wherever he operated – in Albay, Pangasinan and Baguio City.
Was he therefore entitled to conclude that the "intelligence money" he gave to the bagmen reached the principals? Put differently, if the agreed "service" was performed, particularly since that "service" entailed official action or, more correctly, inaction, was he justified in believing that the bagmen spoke for the officials they claimed to be the agents of?
Admittedly, this is not hard evidence. At best, conclusions can be drawn as reasonable conjectures. However, it must be repeated that these are not judicial proceedings. Reputations will be sorely tested here, but that is the realistic lot of public officials these days. Nor is media exempted. Some of its practitioners have been implicated too.
It will not do to swear to one’s innocence on a stack of bibles. Archbishop Cruz is one savvy clergyman who seems weary of politicians’ hypocrisies. His weathered visage is mute testimony to too many past jousts with official lies, half-truths and propaganda.
There is, in addition, the matter of demeanor. I don’t know about you, but Wilfredo Mayor seemed to me to be a credible witness. He withstood the questions of both supportive and skeptical senators. He unhesitatingly responded to queries which ranged from the legalistic, to the perceptive to the amateurishly leading. Plus, he had the singular advantage of having Archbishop Cruz by his side. A better guarantor of his truthfulness and candor it would be difficult to have.
However, at the end of the day – and from all indications, there will be many more days like this, as other witnesses are trotted out – Mayor didn’t really tell us anything new. Rather, he confirmed what most of us already know. It’s gotten to the point that the more relevant question is not who is involved in jueteng but who isn’t.
As we get deeper into these legislative inquiries, as now seems inevitable after yesterday’s proceedings, a couple of cautionary notes are in order. First, I think it is safe to assume that these hearings will continue. For a while there, it seemed like a move to scuttle them would gain ground. But now, any legislator who argues for a cessation of the inquiries is risking his political future, thank God.
Secondly, when the House begins its own hearings, people will be very sensitive to how the congressmen treat the witnesses. I realize that many of them are very concerned about past or future allusions to them. But while they need not treat the witnesses with kid gloves, and those implicated would not be blamed for insisting that their side be aired, they should not use the hearings as instruments to threaten, intimidate, browbeat or silence the witnesses. More than those witnesses, the congressmen, and indeed all local politicians, are under intense scrutiny here.
Finally, while some skepticism is healthy, the legislators should not allow themselves to be seen as openly hostile to the witnesses. Some legislators have a tendency to harp on the illegality of the witnesses’ past acts, even when assurances of immunity have already been given.
It has taken immense personal courage on the part of the witnesses to expose themselves, and they know the very real risks of testifying. The people can tell the difference between honest pursuit of the truth by legislators, and pure obstructionism by the guilty.