Can the accused mastermind get off the hook?
The answer is no. So the defense tack now shaping up for Janet Lim-Napoles is to point to someone else as the brains of the pork barrel scam. This will show that she is not the most guilty and she is therefore qualified to turn state witness, which will give her immunity from prosecution.
It may require a redefinition or clarification of what constitutes a mastermind. If this is the one who designed the scheme to siphon billions from the Priority Development Assistance Fund to private accounts using fake non-government organizations, Napoles may argue that it takes someone familiar with the law and the pork barrel system to come up with such a scam. And that can’t be an ordinary businesswoman like her.
Former senator Panfilo Lacson stoked speculation about the identity of the real brains by disclosing the other day that Napoles gave him a “revealing†recording of a phone conversation she had with someone in connection with the scam.
The number of lawmakers Napoles has implicated, according to Lacson, is enough to muster a quorum in both chambers of Congress.
But we already knew this last year, and the source was official: a report prepared by the Commission on Audit (COA), which linked nearly 200 former and incumbent lawmakers to the scam from 2007 to 2009.
A separate COA report tagged six senators in a similar scheme in 2012 (yes, under daang matuwid), this time using local government units.
The COA reportedly presented truckloads of evidence to support its findings.
With all those official documents, people thought formal charges would be filed swiftly. But today we’re still waiting for those nearly 200 lawmakers, a number of them said to be administration allies, to be indicted.
Whistle-blowers led by Benhur Luy have submitted affidavits implicating lawmakers. Combined with the COA report, is Napoles’ testimony still necessary? Luy and his fellow witnesses don’t think so.
* * *
Experts in criminal law told me that if Napoles fails to prove that someone else is the mastermind, the only reason she can still qualify as a state witness and enjoy immunity from prosecution is if her testimony is the only thing holding the plunder case together, that without her the entire case is lost.
It doesn’t look that way in this case, with the whistle-blowers’ testimonies and the voluminous COA report available to prosecutors.
The widespread speculation is that prosecutors want Napoles’ testimony because she is the only one who can directly link Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and Ramon “Bong†Revilla Jr. (plus several others) to the scam.
Socialite Ruby Tuason was touted as the missing link in the plunder case against Senator Jinggoy, but she is not yet a state witness. Napoles is considered the missing link in the cases against Estrada and Enrile, Revilla and many others, plus their staff such as Gigi Reyes.
Without evidence that the senators directly received commissions from the pork barrel scam, they may be held liable only for lesser offenses.
Is Napoles’ testimony worth letting her off the hook?
* * *
Considering the opposition to giving Napoles immunity from prosecution, a more realistic objective can be set: her testimony in exchange for a lighter indictment and consequent punishment.
It can mean she won’t have to spend the rest of her life behind bars, or a maximum of 40 years by which time she would be past 90.
The plea deal, however, should include full restitution of all public funds she pocketed, unlike the one struck with former military comptroller Carlos Garcia.
The pork barrel case, wherein it looks increasingly certain that senators and congressmen will face trial, is a test of our justice system.
It’s time to stop allowing those who steal people’s money from enjoying the proceeds of their crime. Assets must be seized, including those of family members.
There are stories of public officials who build a reputation for integrity in decades of government service, only to succumb to large-scale corruption as they prepare for retirement.
One such individual, widely believed to have accepted hefty campaign contributions from someone now mired in legal troubles for corruption, reportedly told close friends that he had to think of the financial stability of his children upon his retirement.
He would have left his children a legacy of unsullied public service, but I guess he thought you couldn’t eat integrity.
The attitude is not uncommon in our society where the idea of good parenting is ensuring that children will not have to work, or work too hard, for a living. It underpins dynasty-building in politics.
There are parents who are prepared to spend what’s left of their twilight years in prison in exchange for huge payoffs or commissions that their families can enjoy.
“Enjoy†is the operative word. Crime must not pay, and there are legal ways to ensure this.
A common question as the pork barrel scam continues to unfold is whether lawmakers, if convicted, will go to prison and be any poorer for their crime.
Skepticism that any lawmaker will go to jail is weakening as more scam operators start talking. But doubts persist on whether ill-gotten assets will be confiscated.
No one should be allowed to enjoy money stolen from the people. Not the direct perpetrator, and not his relatives and cronies. This must be made clear, even to those who want to tell all on the pork barrel scam.