There is a rule in evidence that to be accepted as true, a testimony must not only come from the lips of a credible witness but must in itself be credible. In Garcillano, the confluence of so many factors inexorably leads to a conclusion that he is not a credible witness at all. These are: the rejection by the Commission on Appointments for seven times of his nomination as Comelec Commissioner after being denounced as dagdag bawas expert; his disappearance at a time when he was most needed to clear the air with straightforward and categorical answers to the issues surrounding the "Hello Garci" tapes; his flip flopping on the most important question of whether the President called him or not; and his equally ambivalent stance on the taped conversation, feigning incapability to ascertain whether it was his voice caught on the tape while painfully decrying in almost the same breadth that he was a victim of wiretapping. His reputation as an incredible witness indeed preceded his testimony in the lower house.
His very his testimony is likewise absurd and full of holes as to be worthy of any iota of belief. His statement that he never left the Philippines is completely belied by official documents of the Singapore Government sent to our Department of Foreign Affairs showing that he landed there onwards to London. His passport, a very important and the best document to prove his whereabouts during that period has similarly disappeared and could not be found now. So there is nothing to back up his astonishing tale except his mere say so. Sometime in June before he vanished into thin air, he emphatically denied having talked to the President. In the lower house hearing last Tuesday he finally admitted that the President called him on May 24, 2004. However he said that the conversation was not at all about rigging the results of the elections as it was already over and done with except the canvassing and proclamation; yet he could not say what they talked about. If he was called by the President there is no reason not to divulge its purpose unless it is incriminatory. At least he could have told the Congressmen that they talked about the birds and the bees of Lanao which may even sound credible to some of them.
Garcillano’s reason for not divulging the contents of their conversation is his pending petition before the Supreme Court (SC) invoking RA 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Law. After denying he was the one in the illegally wiretapped conversation, he claims that he is a victim of wiretapping. Obviously his petition lacks merit and is dismissible. Besides, Garcillano cannot really invoke RA 4200. This is according to the research made by ex-Senator Rene Saguisag, the only lawyer I know so far who was able to refuse the irresistible offer to become a Supreme Court Justice so many years ago. Saguisag found that in the U.S. case of Bartnicki, the anti-wiretapping laws were ruled invalid when applied "in a way that would deter significantly more speech than necessary to protect the private interests at stake". The U.S. Supreme Court speaking through Justices Warren and Brandeis, ruled that "privacy concerns should give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance. The right of privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest."
E-mail: jcson@pldtdsl.net