Denouement or twist?

AFTER all that’s been said and done—the convoluted interrogations in senate hearings with former AFP generals and leaders, the untimely demise of former Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes, the confessions made by AFP staff who were apparently embroiled in the whole AFP corruption controversy, the exposé bravely furnished by former Commission on Audit (COA) auditor and now COA commissioner Heidi Mendoza, the subsequent resignation of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and the efforts being put in by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to bring the sheen back to its tainted reputation—this is what it all boils down to.
On Monday, despite public clamor to dispute the controversial plea bargain agreement made between ex-AFP comptroller Carlos Garcia and government prosecutors over his P303-million plunder case, the Sandiganbayan Second Division approved the deal.
The ruling came as a blow to President Noynoy Aquino’s campaign against corruption, deemed by the president’s supporters as “totally erroneous,” “a disappointing development” and “highly questionable.”
Through the resolution, Sandiganbayan reasoned that the approval was made because of Garcia’s compliance with its conditions, pleading guilty to the lesser offenses of direct bribery and facilitating of money laundering; and transferring P135.433 million of his and his family’s assets to the state.
“Inasmuch as the provisions of the plea bargaining agreement and the concerns of this court about the protection of the government have been fully addressed, there is no reason why this court should withhold approval of the plea bargaining agreement in these cases,” the Sandiganbayan said.
In two separate rulings, motions filed by The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking to intervene in the case and calling for Presiding Justice Edilberto’s inhibition from the case were also denied by the anti-graft court.
Penned by Associate Justice Teresita Diaz-Baldos and concurred by Sandoval and Associate Justice Martires (who also penned the decision on the OSG’s motion to intervene), the rulings involving the approval the plea bargain agreement and the denial of the OSG’s motions were handed down on the first working day after the effectivity of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez’s resignation. The former Ombudsman came under fire after she approved the plea bargain deal.
The Sandiganbayan stressed that existing public uproar was noted when the OSG’s motions were denied. According to the court, they based the ruling on facts—not on distortions made by critics of the deal, stating that truth takes precedence over public opinion. The court emphasized that it is their duty to follow the basic standards of fairness and equity in order to serve the ends of justice.
The Sandiganbayan ruling also said that the testimony of COA Commissioner Heidi Mendoza was based on “suspicions, innuendos, and unsupported allegations of fraud… that are not supported by proof to buttress her claim.”
Aside from Mendoza’s testimony, the prosecution was only able to produce a handwritten letter and statement from Garcia’s wife, which cannot be used against her husband nor their children.
“From the altered and baseless comments on the true facts and circumstances of the plea bargaining agreement, public opinion snowballed. While the court is used to be[ing] at the center of conflicting interests, and to be the object of criticism from losing parties, we have never seen such distortions and prevarications of the facts from people who are expected to be sentinels of the rule of law,” it said.
Following the approval of the plea bargain deal, Garcia will be sentenced to the charges of direct bribery and facilitating money laundering, which is yet to be scheduled.
While the Sandiganbayan’s decision may seem to have punctuated the plea bargain case with a sense of finality, the battle is far from over.
Solicitor General Joel Cadiz said that they will file a motion for reconsideration after the court released its ruling. He reasoned that the court should’ve allowed OSG to intervene and that “there should’ve been an independent assessment of the agreement.”
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said that “all is not lost because there are remedies under the law. The OSG can always elevate the matter either to the Court of Appeals of the Supreme Court.”
Sen. Franklin Drilon seconded De Lima’s view and said that the government’s remedy would be to elevate the appeal to the Supreme Court and ask them to void the agreement.
The AFP has also expressed its intention to coordinate closely with the OSG and seek guidance from them in order to know the next course of action to take.
While our heads are still reeling from this new development, and perhaps even from the events which preceded it, we should continue to be vigilant and tireless in considering all sides, means and measures that we can exhaust to bring out the “whole” truth and nothing short of it. (AJPress)