No wonder confusion reigns at the hearing of the House of Representatives on the tapes of an alleged wiretapped conversation between someone who sounds like President Arroyo and someone who is said to be elections commissioner Virgilio Garcillano. Until there is credible authentication of the tapes in question, however, the lawmakers involved in the probe as well as their invited "guests" can never be sure which tape they are talking about. So why is there no rush to authenticate any version of the purported tapes? Who’s afraid of the truth?
Any fruit of an illegal wiretap cannot be admissible as evidence either in an impeachment or a judicial proceeding. Lawmakers should be the first to remind the public of this. Nothing, however, can come between a Philippine congressman and an opportunity for live TV coverage. So even before setting down the parameters of yet another investigation ostensibly in aid of legislation, congressmen sat down to preen for the TV cameras, and grilled their "guests" on the controversial tapes. No one was surprised when the common reaction of the guests was, "Which tape?"
If we are to expend so much time, effort and taxpayers’ money on the fruits of illegal wiretapping, we should at least make sure everyone understands which tape is being discussed here. Once this basic requirement is met, the tape should be authenticated — not by some "expert" known only to the opposition, but by an independent third party that is agreed upon by both accuser and accused. Authentication cannot be made on the mere say-so of Panfilo Lacson or Francisco Tatad or Samuel Ong.
There are many countries to choose from for help in this kind of expertise. Whichever country is picked for its experts, the choice should be agreed upon by both the accuser and accused, and the tape in question should be handed over to the experts in the presence of representatives of the parties concerned. Until the authentication results are known, that’s just another useless circus unfolding in Congress.