Preponderant

I think lawyers call it “preponderance of evidence.”

Having invested much time observing the two marathon hearings held at the House of Representatives, I believe a critical mass of testimony is now available to indict Sen. Leila de Lima for abetting the drug menace. Over 30 witnesses, from the high and mighty to the lowly and poor, were assembled by the DOJ to present testimony that would implicate the former Justice Secretary in the drug trade.

The witnesses, including the controversial Jaybee Sebastian, all corroborate the main thesis put forward by the DOJ: that de Lima, when she was Justice Secretary, collected money from the jailed drug lords and, in exchange, allowed them luxuries unheard off in any correctional institution. Furthermore, that de Lima took steps to facilitate consolidation of the wholesale drug trade in exchange for bribe or extortion money or whatever one might choose to call the cash delivered her.

The huge amount of money allegedly delivered her way was, very often, euphemistically described as “contributions” to her senatorial campaign. The euphemism only makes matters worse. It underscores the extent to which the drug syndicates influence the outcomes of elections.

This mass of testimony from people otherwise unrelated to each other, inmates and bodyguards for instance, could not have been manufactured. Otherwise, the witnesses would have tripped on their testimonies under the intense grilling of legislators – pretty much as Edgar Matobato, de Lima’s witness at the Senate, did. Instead, what we saw in the House proceedings was remarkable detail, intimate knowledge and great consistency.

Adding to the conviction that there is now “preponderance of evidence,” is the fact that de Lima’s defense has been questionable.

Instead of confronting the testimonies point-by-point, de Lima issued blanket denials. She described the witnesses as having been “pressured”, “tortured” even. She tried very hard to dismiss all the testimonies as lies. She described one witness as being a blood relation of the President, a point way off the mark.

In the process, she even took issue with Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre’s wig. She tried to picture herself as a human rights defender, although she was never that when she served as Justice Secretary. Lately, she has been claiming she was being persecuted because she was a woman.

De Lima’s PR handlers, the past few days, tried to picture her a devout Catholic. Photos of her in pious poses appeared in the media along with an audience with the bishops.

Churchmen may be frantically looking for a champion who might stall the rising death toll attributed to the war on drugs. That champion could not be someone flawed like de Lima.

Meanwhile, the NBI is said to be assembling documentary evidence to support the testimonies. This could include reports from the on-going AMLA investigation to establish the money trail. Meanwhile, the DOJ has issued a lookout bulletin (ironically a de Lima invention) covering the former Justice Secretary.

The Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) filed a complaint against de Lima before the DOJ. The complaint is based on evidence elicited during the congressional hearings.

But Secretary Aguirre, veteran trial lawyer that he is, will probably wait until solid documentary evidence is gathered. He will prefer to file an airtight case.

It is not de Lima’s good fortune that she has such a competent nemesis.

Beware

Buyers beware, as the old Latin maxim instructs.

One prominent personality recently acquired a high-end luxury vehicle from a local dealership. It took the dealer a long while to get the vehicle properly registered. After getting all sorts of excuses, the buyer went directly to the Land Transportation Office (LTO) to inquire as to why it was taking so long for his papers to be processed.

To his surprise, the LTO informed him there were absolutely no records of his vehicle in the agency’s database. As far as official records show, his vehicle does not exist.

Shocked and dismayed, the buyer asked representatives of the LTO to accompany him to the Bureau of Customs (BoC) to make inquiries about the vehicle’s provenance. The BoC should have the certificate of stock report as well as the certificate of payment for the imported car. The BoC, like the LTO, had no record at all of the vehicle entering our ports.

Only one theory might explain this mystery.

During the APEC meeting in Manila last year, numerous cars from two “official delegation vehicle brands” were allowed to be imported into the country. Through the length of the conference, however, only one vehicle brand was visible. It seems dealers of the other vehicle brand imported but did not deploy their vehicles.

It appears the other dealership imported 100 vehicles “for APEC use.” Because of close connections to the previous administration, this dealership was able to expedite the entry of their “APEC use” cars without paying a single centavo in taxes.  Those 100 luxury cars were brought in without the required documentation.

Over the past months, these luxury vehicles have been sold to wealthy but unsuspecting buyers. Now all of them face the same problem of absent documentation. At some point, the dung will have to hit the fan.

To be sure, Customs chief Nic Faeldon has his hands full investigating such things as the procurement of substandard X-ray machines for the agency and the under-declaration of dozens of imported fire trucks that losing presidential candidate Mar Roxas distributed to local governments with much fanfare to boost his candidacy.

This case of a hundred high-end cars running around without any documentation should be looked into with the same urgency.