Unprecedented cover-up for corruption at an unprecedented scale
THE cyberlibel case brought by mutineer and former senator Antonio Trillanes against 18 Marines who revealed to the nation that they were ordered to be mules for the physical delivery of billions of pesos in graft money to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., his cousin Martin Romualdez, and two dozen other elected officials and bureaucrats, is such a shameless attempt at a cover-up, to silence patriots who are risking their lives to expose this regime’s corruption at an unprecedented scale. I argued in my column a week ago that mainstream media is now under Marcos’ full control, so that our democracy, one of whose major pillars is a free press, is in danger because it totally ignored the explosive exposé. With media bannering the Trillanes’ denial of the allegations, I rest my case.
Eighteen Marines in a signed, notarized affidavit said they had been employed by Romualdez’s top operator, former congressman Zaldy Co, as his security personnel. They disclosed that Co or his staff ordered them to deliver many suitcases filled with billions of pesos in cash to the residences or offices of Marcos, Romualdez, and two dozen other officials. They provided dates, photos, names of individuals that prepare the money. Yet mainstream media did not report these allegations, not even in below-the-fold inside pages, in order not to draw attention to the claims.
In contrast, former Ilocos Sur governor Chavit Singson alleged in 2001 that he delivered jueteng money and funds from the tobacco excise taxes to President Joseph Estrada. Even if Singson didn’t provide photos of such delivery, his allegations became headline news for weeks, and with media’s persistence in following up on these, Estrada was eventually impeached by Congress, forcing him to abdicate his presidency.
This time around, it was the denial of one very dubious personality — former senator Antonio Trillanes — involving his alleged meetings with investigators from the International Criminal Court and his turnover to them of $2 million that mainstream media highlighted to the public. How biased can a media be?
For chrissakes, Trillanes’ drama of filing the cyberlibel case is a political fart — a nuisance certainly, but whose stink quickly disperses, which however reveals the farter’s bankrupt character.
Parsimonious
In the first place, Trillanes seems to be parsimonious in his funds — whose source is a mystery to most people since he doesn’t have a means to generate such huge amounts of money for his political operations — that there is no lawyer representing him in the filing of his cyberlibel case.
Or perhaps word has gotten around that he doesn’t pay the lawyers he contracts, so he can’t get any attorney. This was the accusation of his former partner Jude Sabio in filing the ICC case in 2017 against Rodrigo Duterte. In 2020, Sabio withdrew as complainant, claiming that the people behind the case failed to pay him adequately for his legal services. He said he was repeatedly told that there was “no more budget due to financial constraints” and that he was only given small amounts, while being used for “political propaganda.” Most observers thought that it was a case of “didal,” a Filipino term meaning that funds intended for a participant in a project are pocketed by its main proponent.
That Trillanes couldn’t get a lawyer to formulate his suit could be the reason for its fatal legal flaws, which should prod the Justice Department to immediately dismiss it:
1. For starters, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and its implementing rules specify that complaints involving cyberlibel should be filed where the article was written, printed, first published, or where the offended party resides or works. Trillanes’ official residence is in Caloocan City, and in his complaint, he states his office is in Quezon City. He filed his complaint at the Justice Department’s National Prosecution Service in Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila.
This is a rule well-known to lawyers worth their salt. Nearly all of the many cyberlibel complaints against The Manila Times’ editors or columnists were dismissed because of this rule. One was filed in Zamboanga City by House Majority Leader and Zamboanga City 2nd District Rep. Manuel Jose Dalipe, and the other was filed against me in Cebu City by its House Rep. Duke Frasco — both obviously, perhaps thinking that their influence in their areas would assure our conviction. Since the two congressmen’s places of work were at the Batasan Pambansa in Quezon City, and The Manila Times’ office is in Manila, not where they filed the complaints, the Justice Department dismissed the complaints posthaste to the wastebasket.
Computer
2. The Cybercrime Law is about libel undertaken through a “computer” network (i.e., the internet). None of the 18 Marines made their accusations through the internet. These were made through an affidavit and in a press conference at Club Filipino. It is not their fault that, of course, in this day and age, their accusations were spread by others on the internet. Like Trillanes, most of those who have filed “cyberlibel” charges against journalists do so in their hope to make them suffer the maximum punishment. The maximum jail sentence for traditional libel is just six months to four years; for cyberlibel, it is six years to 12 years.
3. Trillanes would be surprised that if he were to read the Marines’ affidavit again, listen to their lawyer Baligod’s interviews, and download the posts of those he also charged with cyberlibel — Lorraine Badoy, Mike Defensor and Jay Sonza — he would realize they did not categorically accuse Marcos, Romualdez, and other officials of any crime. They simply reported that P805 billion (I think that was an error; it should be just P80.5 billion) was delivered to the officials by the Marines from former congressman Zaldy Co’s office and residence.
Nowhere did they say that these were stolen from the government funds intended for flood control and other infrastructure, and therefore involved corruption. While we and they know where the funds came from, they had not legally accused anybody of any crime. They merely submitted their affidavit to the Ombudsman, whose solemn duty is to investigate if those moneys were government funds, and consequently file charges against Co and those who received it. “Palusot?” Yes, but any legal system is based on precise allegations, not on presumptions.
3. Trillanes has also been jumping up and down deliriously, saying that it was libelous for Baligod and the 18 Marines to claim that he gave $2 million “to fund and facilitate the investigation of the ICC of the ongoing crimes against humanity case of former president Duterte.” Again, nowhere in the Marines’ affidavits or Baligod’s media interviews was it asserted that this was a crime.
Other than a propaganda platform to claim his innocence, Trillanes’ cyberlibel case is as fleeting as a fart. Its only purpose, at least in his mind, is to harass the 18 Marines, Baligod, Sonza and Defensor, and to discourage others from further reporting on it.
Sham
The Cybercrime Law has created a sham; Justice Department prosecutors see such cases as nuisance suits that merely burden them. There are over 3,700 cybercrime cases that have so far been filed since the law was passed in 2012. For politicians and the moneyed class, it’s just another case for their regular lawyers to earn their retainer fees. On the other hand, journalists and social media activists’ pockets are burned through as they have to hire lawyers to defend them. Can you believe that just 12 cases out of these 3,700 cases have been resolved, the majority of which took five years for the courts to issue decisions?
The Cybercrime Law’s implementation, however, has definitely had a chilling effect. To be honest, I have become more cautious, especially if an allegation is against a private individual, as several Supreme Court decisions have dismissed libel and cyberlibel suits against government officials on the ground that, holding a public office, they cannot be onion-skinned, especially since a free press is a pillar of democracy and a spear against corruption.
On the other hand, expensive lawyers could get a guilty journalist evade the penalties. Rappler founder Maria Ressa was convicted by a Manila trial court branch in 2020 (which was upheld by the Court of Appeals in 2022) for claiming that businessman Willy Keng was involved in human trafficking and drug smuggling. Yet she has not served the six months to six years jail penalty imposed for the P400,000 damage granted, because her lawyers have filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. With that kind of Damocles sword hanging over Ressa’s head, it’s not surprising that Rappler’s coverage of the Marcos regime has been muted, if not kind.
Trillanes’ libel case is part of the Marcos government’s demolition job to discredit the “Brave 18” Marines, so their revelations won’t get traction. Instead of doing its duty to investigate the allegations, the Ombudsman has dismissed them as part of a destabilization plot against Marcos. Since when is the Ombudsman’s job to impute political threats? He also claims that four of the 18 Marines are facing murder charges. Doesn’t he know that under our laws, a person is innocent until proven guilty? Or that a vital witness against the tycoon Atong Ang, whom he has accepted under the Witness Protection Program, has been charged with multiple rape?
In the end, the issue goes beyond Trillanes or the 18 Marines. It touches on the fundamental question of how a democratic society deals with accusations against public figures. If the response to allegations is criminal prosecution by agencies whose duty is to investigate these, we are just one step to full dictatorship, and to killing anybody who criticizes the regime.
Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao
X: @bobitiglao
Website: www.rigobertotiglao.com
The post Unprecedented cover-up for corruption at an unprecedented scale first appeared on Rigoberto Tiglao.
Unprecedented cover-up for corruption at an unprecedented scale
Source: Breaking News PH
No comments: