Search for truth (Part II)

Right now the Ombudsman (OMB), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and three Senate Committees led by the Blue Ribbon Committee are conducting the investigations on the supposed anomalies surrounding the ZTE-NBN contract.

The investigations by the OMB and DOJ are preliminary inquiries to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and whether the person/s involved therein should be held for trial in Court. Hence the search for truth here will eventually be handled by the Judiciary which is supposed to be an independent branch of government.

The factual inquiries in the Senate on the other hand are principally in aid of possible legislations. Here the search for truth is conducted by a House of Congress which is another independent branch.

Unfortunately, there is public perception of lack of objectivity on the part of the DOJ and the OMB in conducting their investigations mainly because both officials heading these offices are appointees of Malacañang. People believe that the weaknesses of human nature will definitely prevail in their decision making process.

Indeed the track record of the DOJ Secretary consistently shows he is always quick to defend Malacañang against critics and fast on the draw in taking actions against them. The public simply do not trust the DOJ to conduct a fair and judicious probe of an anomaly committed by the very branch of government to which it belongs. Seeing the truth in the results of its investigation is like seeing something ugly as beautiful.

The same is true with the OMB. Even disregarding the fact that she was the former Presidential Legal Counsel and former law school classmate of the first gentleman, her previous decisions on graft complaints against people close to the Palace do not speak well of her impartiality and fairness. While she has inhibited herself in the ZTE probe, she is still the big boss who calls the shots at the office conducting such probe.

It seems therefore that the most “independent” fact finding body now conducting the probe is the Senate. Both the administration and its critics are amply and ably represented in this probe. Admittedly some of the Senators appear not to be really after the truth in propounding their questions that are obviously silly, unnecessary or purely motivated by some hidden agenda. Some of them do not even know how to ask the right questions or do not ask questions at all but merely express their opinions betraying their bias. But on the whole, their inquiry looks more credible simply because both sides are represented.

Furthermore, the inquiries of both the OMB and the DOJ are not as extensive as the Senate. They can only determine the culpabilities of government officials who may be guilty of graft and corruption. They cannot inquire into the culpability or non-culpability of the President as she is immune from suit. The Senate has no such restriction in its inquiry. Besides in looking for the truth, the OMB and the DOJ can only rely on evidence or the means allowed by the rules in judicial proceedings to ascertain the truth. In the Senate, everything that has probative force intrinsically or what is known as “proof” can be considered.

Whatever may be the findings of these different branches of government conducting the probe, it would be good for citizens to keep in mind some events and truisms that they can use in determining on which side is the truth.

Foremost among these happenings are Neri’s reluctance to disclose everything he knows by invoking executive privilege and the government’s highly questionable manner of treating a star witness to the anomaly like Lozada whose ordeal at the hands of his airport “welcomers” drove him to finally reveal what he knows.

Citizens like you and me trying to figure out what is true and false on the exposes of the witnesses who have come out to denounce this anomaly and the government’s reaction to them should also consider: that testimonies of witnesses on facts derived from his own personal knowledge and perceptions are as good an evidence as a document; that positive and categorical assertions of witnesses generally prevail over bare denials; that credible witnesses must also give credible testimonies so that if their versions are absurd and does not make sense at all, their testimonies are unworthy of belief; that those who have nothing to hide usually has truth on their side and therefore has nothing to fear in bringing everything out; and that, as Martin Luther King said “hatred erodes objectivity and causes one to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true”.

Finally we can also consider these gems of thought from UST Rector Fr. Rolando de la Rosa, O.P. in his homily during the Mass at the students’ rally. Fr. De la Rosa reminded the students that it is humility that makes the truth of one’s statement unassailable and that God chooses people to witness to the truth, not because they are blameless but because something has happened to them. Then he also said:

“The way we see things reveal, not the way things are, but the way we are. A person with a clean heart will see beauty and peace around him. A person whose heart is clouded by suspicion and mistrust will see nothing but betrayal and deception. The roots of our eyes are in the heart.

We can see the truth only if we first have it in our hearts.

Truth must be true in all its part. A half truth is a whole lie. We cannot be warriors of truth if we are not men and women of integrity.

A person with integrity has a sense of wholeness or consistency within him. His thought is consistent with his words, which in turn are consistent with his actions.

The crisis of integrity involves us all. In the body of Christ, we belong to one another, we affect one another and we cannot escape one another”.