Eclipsed by the revelations about massive corruption in the Armed Forces of the Philippines was the original subject of the hearing conducted last Thursday by the Senate Blue Ribbon committee: the plea-bargaining being worked out by former military comptroller Carlos Garcia on his plunder case.
There were confusing moments during the hearing, when it seemed like Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit was Garcia’s lawyer as she defended the plea-bargaining. Sulit insisted that the government’s case was weak, contrary to the view of Simeon Marcelo, who as Ombudsman had put together the plunder case against Garcia. A crucial piece of evidence – written statements submitted to US immigration and customs authorities by Garcia’s wife Clarita, which detailed the sources of the family’s immense wealth – could not be used in the case, Sulit insisted. Marcelo cited jurisprudence that allowed even verbal statements to be used as prosecution evidence.
The two-star Garcia is the highest-ranking military officer to be prosecuted for corruption. He has already been convicted by a court martial and sentenced to two years of hard labor for violation of military rules. In the light of revelations made by a former military budget officer about corruption at the top echelons of the AFP, his successful prosecution for plunder would serve as a strong warning that illegal acquisition of wealth will no longer be tolerated in the military.
All defendants are entitled to cop a plea for a lighter sentence. In this land of snail-paced justice, plea-bargaining can also mean a speedier resolution of cases. But Garcia’s proposal, supported by government prosecutors, left a bad taste in the mouth when it first came to light. The taste has become worse following the recent revelations on the extent of corruption in the AFP. It’s not yet too late to reassess that proposed agreement.