“Napoles was under the WPP then, but it was Guevarra who thumbed down her stay and possible state witness status.”

Based on Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra’s handling, or more accurately non-handling of high profile cases, he appears to have acquired this habit of passing on decisions he should be making to other agencies, which causes more delays in resolving cases.

Guevarra’s practice seems evident in his review of the Bureau of Immigration’s deportation order on Australian Missionary Sister Patricia Fox which was, after a month, sent back to BI which will now have to undergo another proceeding under a case of deportation on the basis of Fox’s cancelation of her missionary visa.

What this means is the BI will then submit the same evidence and the cancellation of the visa order to the Department of Justice (DoJ) which will then have to decide again whether the evidence is sufficient or not.

It’s no different from the red tape problem that bugs government offices.

It’s such a waste of time, and the DoJ is already known to take forever in deciding and resolving petitioners’ motions for DoJ’s review which sometimes are never reviewed at all since the petitioners’ cases in court would have already been decided.

The same Guevarra style in passing on to other agencies what should be his decision when it concerns high profile cases is evident in the case of alleged pork barrel queen Janet Lim Napoles’ quest to be under the DoJ’s Witness Protection Program (WPP).

Napoles is seeking WPP coverage in cases that could be filed against the allies of the yellow president, Benigno Aquino, all of whom were never indicted for plunder.

Yesterday, Guevarra said the DoJ is open to receiving additional testimony from Napoles on the pork barrel scam which amounted to billions of pesos.

There was, of course, the usual Guevarra practice of passing on the decision in making Napoles a state witness and for her to be placed under the WPP to yet another government office.

He said the decision will still be up to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), an agency under the DoJ, to determine if possible new testimony from Napoles would still be necessary.

Well, obviously, if Guevarra, as DoJ chief, really wants to pursue the pork barrel scam cases against the other senators and congressmen listed under the Commission on Audit special audit report, but who were never indicted by the yellow Ombudsman under her selective justice brand, Guevarra has the power and authority to order the NBI to probe these complaints/cases against the yellows.

That is if the DoJ chief really wants to have Napoles’ testimony that could translate to the indictment of several members of Congress, former and current, on the pork barrel scam.

Guevarra appears to be scared of unfavorable media reports and commentaries on him and his decisions, which would generally come from the pro-Aquino media, also known as the yellow media and Aquino allies when it comes to decisions on the fate of those whom the yellow media favor and provide media support for such as Fox, but all out against Napoles since the yellow media continue to protect Aquino and his yellow allies.

The NBI was into probing the pork barrel scam and Napoles was already placed under the WPP of the DoJ on original orders of then DoJ chief Vitaliano Aguirre. Surely, by now, the second NBI probe would have been finished with this task.

Napoles was under the WPP then, but it was Guevarra who thumbed down her stay and possible state witness status. The yellow media raised a howl at the decision made by Aguirre and the biased media reports against Aguirre probably scared off Guevarra.

So, why bother with the probe when everything is hinged on what information Napoles has? She won’t freely give Guevarra or his NBI that information and evidence she holds without getting anything in return.

Both NBI and Guevarra know this, but he still says: “If part of that evidence-gathering would involve getting information voluntarily from Ms. Napoles, then so be it.”

What then do Guevarra and his NBI expect to get from Napoles, if he thinks that Napoles would provide the information voluntarily?

Guevarra passes it on again to another agency, saying even as the DoJ is “definitely” open to additional testimony from Napoles, he stressed that considering her as a state witness belongs to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

It really is the court of law that decides whether or not to make one a state witness. There is nothing that says the DoJ and the Ombudsman cannot strongly recommend state witness status and immunity or at the very least, a reduced jail sentence for Napoles as a state witness.

Justice officials are expected to decide controversial complaints without fear of negative media publicity.

So why does Guevarra hem and haw over such decisions which are his to make?