Tortured claims

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20091003-228103/Tortured-claims

Tortured claims

By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 04:22:00 10/03/2009

SO NOW it is all out in the Open.

IT’s in this column two weeks ago, I stated that the government didn’t seem to want to win its Sandiganbayan Civil Case 005 against 29 individuals (including Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos, Lucio Tan and Mariano Tanenglian) and 40 corporations (including Tan’s flagship corporations). Why? Because, among others, it was dragging its feet in offering immunity to Mariano in exchange for his turning state witness against his brother Lucio. Mariano and his lawyers had actually gone to the Sandiganbayan, asking it to compel the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to act on the deal which was on the table.

Let us make no mistake. Tanenglian’s testimony on business deals and other transactions between Tan and Marcos would certainly strengthen (beyond all legal machinations) the case against Tan, confirming as it would, Bongbong Marcos’ testimony on the matter, as well as the documentary evidence that PCGG lawyer Catalino Generillo had painstakingly put together (before he was fired by the Office of the Solicitor General). After all, Tanenglian was known as Lucio’s right hand man for over 40 years and the treasurer of all the Tan corporations, until a rift between the brothers occurred early this year. (Tanenglian was prevented from entering corporate offices and removed from all his board memberships.) Tanenglian knows where all the bodies are.

In other words, Tanenglian’s testimony, in exchange for immunity, offers the best and strongest chance the government would ever have of winning a case against Tan. (It has lost all others.)

All these considerations, however, seem to have carried no weight with Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera. In fact, two days after my column came out, the newspapers reported that in a legal opinion sent to the PCGG, she had recommended that Tanenglian’s “application for criminal and civil immunity” be rejected by the PCGG.

How can anyone justify turning her back on this golden, almost heaven-sent opportunity to take advantage of the Tan consigliere? That’s not how Devanadera looks at it. She wants the deal “rejected outright.” Why? From what can be gathered from the news reports, firs t, she claims that the deal will be grossly disadvantageous to the republic, because, among other things, while Tanenglian obliges himself to provide useful information once the immunity agreement is executed, there is no certainty that he will provide useful information at all, and yet the case against him will be dropped and any sequestration or lien on his property will be dismissed. (NB: I am informed that the draft agreement between Tanenglian and PCGG was patterned after the latter’s agreement with Placido Mapa Jr. –both provide for the revocation of the immunity if the terms are not complied with.)

She also claims that Tanenglian’s motives for turning state witness are obscure, and she suspects that the proposed grant of immunity may be used by Tan and the other defendants, in connivance with Tanenglian, to protect their shareholdings by transferring their shares of stocks in favor of Tanenglian, so that the shares will now be out of the government’s reach. But in almost the same breath, she also says that she doesn’t want the government to get entangled in the crossfire between the two “warring” brothers.

And then, she opines amid all this that Tanenglian’s admissions would have “zero credibility” since they are coming out after more than 20 years, and it would be better for the republic to rely on Bongbong.

The last time I saw such tortured, tenuous claims from her was when, as acting justice secretary, she overruled her prosecutor—with unseemly haste—and found that there was probable cause to file murder charges against Louie Gonzalez because the Makati Medical Center, where Louie was confined under restraints on the night of the murder, was 15 minutes from the murder scene, and it was “not impossible” for him to have done it.

But let’s leave the merits (or lack of them) of her Tanenglian opinion, and turn our attention to certain glaring inconsistencies between her stand and that of her underlings.

Number one, why did the OSG itself, in a motion for reconsideration to the Sandiganbayan last May, manifest that the testimony of Mariano Tanenglian, among other witnesses, was “essential to fortify its (plaintiff) claims and to give the Honorable Sandiganbayan a well-informed set of facts to serve as basis for its ruling on the case”?

Number two, why did the OSG, through Associate Solicitor Anthony Lemuel T. Lim, contact Tanenglian’s lawyers and inquire about the possibility of his being a state witness?

Number three, why did Lim, State Solicitor Mauricia Dinopol and Assistant Solicitor John Emmanuel Madamba meet in their office with Tanenglian’s lawyers; with subsequent meetings on July 8 and July 13, where an agreement in principle was reached, subject only to the formal OSG opinion?

What those three events suggest is that Devanadera’s underlings were very eager to get Tanenglian as state witness. They wanted to win. But then, along comes Devanadera, overturning their plans at the last minute, and coming out with a convoluted legal opinion to justify her actions.

Which all leads to my last two questions: Why does Devanadera want to lose the case against Tan? And what is President Macapagal-Arroyo going to do about it? I’d ask the justice secretary first, of course, but that would be Devanadera too.