Incommunicado

Darn.

I sort of looked forward to hearing Janet Lim Napoles testify before the Senate Blue Ribbon committee. I even planned making the pilgrimage all the way to Pasay to observe the proceedings live and without commercial breaks, to scrutinize the body language of the interrogators. This is, after all, the best show in town.

During such hearings, the honorable senators try to outdo each other. They throw questions from every angle and from every conceivable logical construct. With someone like “Ma’am” Janet, this could be a suspenseful, explosive session.

I would love to hear a few questions asked, those not directly bearing on the complaint now before the Ombudsman. Questions like: Why do you hold parties in a cemetery? Did you have lunch at the Palace before you surrendered? Who asked you to lobby senator-judges to have Corona convicted? Are you for or against the RH bill? Who was the lucky beneficiary of that expensive Mont Blanc pen you had bought?

All trivial questions really. None of these should affect the Ombudsman’s review of the documents sent her.

Sadly, the greatest show of this time is not going to happen.

The Senate President decided the matter of summoning Napoles was a judgment to be made by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, for her part, decided this was not a good time to bring “ma’am” Janet out of her lonely cell and throw her into the public limelight.

In a word, the public will not get the free entertainment we all crave for — entertainment that could lift us up from the dreariness of war in Zamboanga and a super typhoon in Batanes.

There is enough legal space to argue against the Ombudsman’s position regarding Napoles’ appearance before the Senate. Senator Chiz Escudero correctly points out that the limitation cited to prevent a Napoles appearance applies principally to the Office of the Ombudsman and its staff — and only when a preliminary investigation is in progress. It is a weaker argument than the one presented by Sen. TG Guingona in defense of the Senate’s power to summon people relevant to an inquiry in progress.

Notwithstanding, the subpoena for Napoles to appear will not be issued unless it is signed by the Senate President. Franklin Drilon makes it clear he will not issue that subpoena. No authority can compel him to alter that position — unless this becomes a vital question dividing the Senate. In which case, Drilon will have to stake his leadership on this question.

Drilon’s position basically gags Napoles. It should enjoy the support of the senators already charged with plunder, ironically. It is a position that cannot possibly attract the support of the freshmen senators — precisely Drilon’s core constituency in the chamber.

Drilon and the senators named in the DOJ complaint before the Ombudsman have a common interest in downsizing the entire controversy. Somehow, those who could still be burned by this scandal (as many as 8 senators and 80 congressmen) are hopeful the issue, once played down, will soon be forgotten. Then life can go on as usual with enough pork to go around.

Those who seek to downsize this scandal have everything to gain from keeping “Ma’am” Janet incommunicado. The interview she had with a major daily, the transcript of which eventually published in full, demonstrates how dangerous it is to put her before an open microphone.

Imagine the hemorrhage she could cause across the political class, regardless of current alignments, if she were to sit before a panel of curious senators, covered live by the national media. This story, which everybody seems intent to downsize, could spin wildly out of control.

Forget about the other whistleblowers scheduled for presentation today before the Blue Ribbon committee. They will basically echo the narration made earlier by Benhur Luy. Only Janet Napoles can give us a fuller picture, a complete sense of the depth and breadth of this scandal.

If the dimensions of this scandal widens any more than it already has, this could shake the present administration to its very foundations. It will decimate the political class. It will fundamentally change the dynamics leading up to the next presidential contest.

Without the pork barrel, it will be nearly impossible for the executive branch to continue dominating the legislative by means of bribery. Electoral campaigns can no longer be done in the old way, opening the stage for new players to come in. These new players are not part of the old boys’ club that controlled dynastic politics in this country. They cannot be expected to play by the old rules of the game.

The administration wants the pork barrel retained in some way. That is the only way to restore the old order of things and prevent our politics from becoming too unwieldy.

There is a major roadblock to a return to the status quo ante: an outraged population speaking through the uncontrolled new media. For as long as the chatter persists in social media, the scandal will not go away and be forgotten.

In the end, the effort to kill the story by keeping “Ma’am” Janet out of sight will be futile. The lid opened. The genie has escaped. Every traditional politician is now suspect.

The struggle to put Napoles on the dock, before a microphone, to answer all the questions in the public mind, could be the tipping point. If she is kept out of view, the public will be enraged, feeling deprived of the chance to hear the truth. If she is put on dock to tell her story, the public will be enraged even more by the sheer banality by which we have been ruled.