The wonder of you

The wide interest in the tale of the tape of an alleged conversation between President GMA and Commission on Elections Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano is hardly surprising. At the core of the controversy is the authenticity of the electoral mandate of the President. Did she really win the 2004 presidential elections, or was her election procured through fraud with the cooperation of the Comelec?

In many ways, this controversy is more significant than the jueteng hearings before the Congress. In those hearings, the ultimate result could be the criminal prosecution of gambling lords, their protectors in government and even the small cabos and collectors. But the downfall of a President, while possible, is not inevitable.

But the tape, if it is as damaging as it purports to be, will lead to the impeachment of an incumbent President. That, in turn, will invariably result in instability and turmoil. Thus, it is of vital importance to establish which tape is genuine and which is doctored.

The National Bureau of Investigation has found that both versions of the tape have been tampered with. But the NBI also found that the female voice on both tapes was one and the same. That implies that portions of the tape are genuine while others are doctored. The problem is, which part?

In the "government" version of the tape, GMA is heard talking to a local political leader named "Gary." In the "opposition" version, she is heard talking also to a "Gary" who is clearly another person but who allegedly is actually "Garci" or Garcillano.

The Comelec Commissioner has denied that he was the person GMA was talking to. As of this writing, the "Gary" of the administration tape, one Edgar Ruado, has submitted an affidavit to the NBI. Ruado who claims to have been a Regional Political Officer for GMA, is currently the chief of staff of Rep. Iggy Arroyo.

This issue must be decided on the facts, and competent technical evaluations, not on the basis of political affiliation, personal bias or seat-of-the-pants speculation as to which side "sounds" more credible. To jump to conclusions on half-baked or self-serving evidence, presented by either side of the controversy, would play into the hands of partisan groups or those who seek to destabilize the government. Power grabbers are as bad, if not worse than, election stealers. They are simply two sides of the same odoriferous coin.

So, where are we so far? Let’s start with the sources of the two versions of the tape, two tales themselves full of wonder and mystery. Where did the tapes come from? Who did the taping?

According to the administration, copies of the two versions of the tape, the genuine and the doctored, were sent to the office of the Press Secretary by unknown parties. There are no further indications of their source, according to Secretary Toting Bunye. However, one version, where GMA is heard talking with her political leader and not Garcillano, is touted as the "smoking gun" which allegedly proves that the opposition tape is tampered.

Some wags wonder at the luck of this administration. This isn’t the first time that anonymous parties send parcels which turn out to have "explosive" information helpful to the party in power. You probably recall that package which suddenly materialized on the desk of Director Ricardo Manapat of the National Archives Office. The package turned out to contain supposed documents in regard to the marriage of the father of presidential candidate Fernando Poe, Jr. Those documents allegedly showed that the latter was not a Filipino citizen.

Now, another anonymous package shows up, with impeccable timing, containing the allegedly doctored tape but–will wonders never cease– with the supposedly pristine and untampered version enclosed. Somebody up there must really like the party in power.

However, the opposition story isn’t that much better. Atty. Allan Paguia, who used to be counsel to former President Erap Estrada, admitted he was the source of the version of the tape which purports to show Comelec Commissioner Garcillano talking to GMA about possible poll fraud. Paguia says he doesn’t know how the tape got to him or why he was chosen to receive the tape in the first place.

Both sides, of course, disclaim any knowledge of who did the taping. All the theories put forward so far have either been specifically denied or remain in the realm of the speculative. There is agreement that it must have been very expensive to bug the President’s cellular phones because today’s digital, as opposed to analog, equipment is difficult to tap.

A prime suspect was the United States intelligence service which is reputed to be able to tap phones from space with spy satellites. However, the US government categorically denied any involvement. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is Senator Pong Biazon’s preferred perpetrator because a voice-over annotator identified the tape using the military way of stating the day and time the tape was made. The AFP, too, denied any participation in the dastardly, not to mention illegal, deed.

The anti-wire tapping law was clearly violated. But, naturally, no one has come forward to say that he knew how a Presidential conversation was bugged and by whom. The government says the matter has been referred to the NBI for investigation. Not much hope is held out that the Bureau will be able to provide the answers. Considering the time that has passed, the perpetrators have most likely covered their tracks by now.

What’s important is not what each of us wants to believe, but what the facts show. Contrary to what some think, it is not impossible to carry the investigation forward. For instance, there are ways of identifying the voices on the tape. Voice prints are as distinctive and individual as fingerprints. Laboratories in the US, Britain and Germany, among other countries, can identify voices as well as spot if an audio tape has been spliced. Even the NBI has suggested that, if necessary, foreign expert assistance should be resorted to.

Until definitive information is obtained to shed light on the many technical aspects of the tapes thus far produced, the truth cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. In its place there can only be the wild speculation and partisan propaganda we’re seeing today. Neither serves the public interest.