The proper steps

The only undisputed fact that clearly stands out of all the mess surrounding the pork barrel scam is that the Filipino people have been robbed of their money paid to the government in the form of taxes. This is “corpus delicti” or the body or substance of the crime. It refers to the fact that a crime has been actually been committed (People vs. Bautista 666 SCRA, 518).

Still to be proven and established are the identities of the persons who committed the crime and the exact amount of money they looted from the public treasury. In this case, apart from Janet Lim Napoles who has virtually admitted her guilt and even offered to return her share in the loot allegedly amounting to P2 billion, the identities of the public officials who actually took part in the plunder and the exact amount they have stolen are still to be established and proven.

The proof required for their conviction must be “proof beyond reasonable doubt” of every fact necessary to constitute the crime of plunder. Such degree of proof does not mean “absolute certainty as to exclude possibility of error; only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which produces a conviction in an unprejudiced mind” (People vs. Garcia, 617, SCRA 318).

The sworn declaration or “tell all” statement of Napoles alone especially as to the identities of the public officials who have committed the crime, even if reiterated in court may not be enough to meet this requirement of proof. It must be backed up and corroborated by competent and relevant documentary and testimonial evidence showing in detail the actual participation of those named by Napoles. The records of the government agencies involved in the expenditure of these funds particularly the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Commission on Audit (COA) are much better and more reliable evidence in this regard.

It must be pointed out however that Napoles’ affidavits as well as the sworn declarations and documents in the hands of the whistle blowers are bases for the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation to establish “probable cause” for purposes of filing the charges in court against the officials named therein. ‘Probable cause” has been defined as “such sets of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be charged and arrested (Santos vs. Orda, Jr., 620 SCRA 375); such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondents are probably guilty thereof (Kalalo vs. Ombudsman 619, SCRA 141).

So far the Ombudsman has conducted a preliminary investigation and established probable cause   only against three senators named by Napoles who are not allies of this administration. Certainly the Ombudsman must have known that even before Napoles submitted her list, other Senators and Members of the House of Representatives are likewise involved. Their names must also be in COA and DBM records. So the Ombudsman should have also conducted a preliminary investigation to determine probable cause against all of the officials appearing in those records.

At any rate, it is not yet too late for the Ombudsman to conduct the preliminary investigations of these officials without regard to their party affiliations. It should act fast especially now that several lists have sprouted containing names of officials who allegedly participated in the scam. And in this connection, it must likewise be pointed out that mere denials by the other Senators and Congressmen in the list are worthless in the face of their positive identification as participants in the scam (People vs. Salafranca 666 SCRA 501). Such denials must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability (People vs. Tubat, 664 SCRA 712). And this can be submitted only during the trial of the case already, after determination of probable cause.

So in the interest of justice and fairness especially to those in the list, the Ombudsman should expedite the preliminary investigation and file the necessary charges in court in order that those named therein can establish their non-culpability and clear their names once and for all, as soon as possible. And while the trial is going on, the public should not adjudge them already guilty because they are presumed innocent until their guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is the real essence of “due process of law.”

But over and above the prosecution and conviction of the plunderers in this case, all of us should be more concerned about the future of our country. Since we supposedly regained our freedom and independence after toppling the corrupt Marcos dictatorship, the greed for money and power among the leaders running our government both local and national remains uncontrolled and has even expanded and grown.

Our elected leaders have their own vested interest to protect or are backed up by legitimate and/ or illegitimate vested interests. They are so keen in acquiring power so they can enrich themselves in office in order to retain power and establish political dynasties. Some of them run for office not because they are qualified to render public service but because they are popular and would like to enhance their wealth and influence.

We should not therefore continue to be indifferent and unconcerned about this unfortunate situation we are in. At this stage, the first step we can take is to intensely work for the abolition of the pork barrel system, which is the main source of corruption in the government. The PDAF has already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Let us be more vigilant in seeing to it that the bigger and equally unconstitutional DAP concocted by this administration will also be shot down by the SC. Without these pork barrels, only sincere and dedicated people will be interested to run for public office because it will no longer be attractive to the traditionally greedy politicians.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]