After suspended Bureau of Corrections Director General Gerald Bantag unleashed a mouthful of issues against Secretary of Justice, Jesus Crispin "Boying" Remulla on 11 November 2022, the Department of Justice issued an official statement, stating, among others, that "Nobody wanted the evidence to point to Director General Bantag," and that it has "no other motive xxx than to bring out the truth and reality." The DoJ added that the "totality" of the evidence pointed to the respondents, which include Bantag, as probably guilty thereof. It described Bantag's "words and actions" as "personal and inappropriate" and "coming from a misguided sense of betrayal."
The official response of the DoJ, while inoffensive and even conciliatory, was couched in the usual legalese manner, adopted by lawyers when they want to dodge an issue and opt not to engage the other side.
The SoJ who was in Geneva, Switzerland for an official visit, when the embattled sidelined BuCor chief let go of his steamy verbal blasts, and at the time of writing this column has not returned to the country, sent a short and terse statement, apparently as a reaction to Bantag's impassioned but sensical narrative. He said:
"I'm in Geneva. He should be man enough to face the murder charges. Talk is cheap."
"Hindi ko papatulan yon. Same answer. Face the charges like a real man."
SoJ's reaction is not the kind of in-depth or embracive response appropriate to the serious and disconcerting issues raised against him.
Bantag came out with the information that the SoJ ordered the release of inmates who are allegedly drug lords who are under the Witness Protection Program detained at the ISAF. Is this true? Why are they being released, what's the purpose?
Bantag says the claim of SoJ that he did not attend the graduation rites of the inmates at New Bilibid Prison on 9 September 2022 was "very, very livid" because he allegedly learned the radio commentator was going to Laguna to take pictures of his "mansion" and "fleet of cars" presumably to bolster the story of the "Cinderella Man," is a brazen lie.
Bantag said he was at the Director General's quarters and identified certain BuCor officials as his witnesses. Moreover, Bantag claims that the "Cinderella Man" story came out on the program of the deceased before 9 September 2022 and he even sent a video of the same to you on 7 September 2022 asking for guidance.
He also sent a copy of the video to his PNPA classmates in their group chats asking for advice from them as to the legal remedies available to him on the offending video. Did SoJ indeed receive the "Cinderella Man" video on 7 September 2022? Did he ignore the video sent to him by Bantag?
Bantag accuses SoJ of using the murder case to get publicity for himself in preparation for a national run in 2025. Does SoJ intend to run for national office in 2025? Bantag alleges that he offered to resign when SoJ took the helm of the Department of Justice. Is this true? Why did he ask him to stay put as BuCor chief? Is it true as Bantag claims that SoJ declined the former's resignation so he could use him for his political plans for 2025?
Bantag further claims he is/was a marijuana user, how true is this?
He also demands and dares SoJ to step down as Justice Chief because the latter's son being charged with illegal trafficking of drugs puts him in a conflict of interest situation vis-a-vis his being the Secretary of Justice. What is SoJ's response to this, especially now that Bantag has vowed not to surrender even if there is a warrant for his arrest for as long as he remains the Secretary of Justice?
What is his position on this?
There is a need for an equivocal response to all the issues raised by Bantag. Putting those matters in limbo without a reply may create a perception, rightly or wrongly, that SoJ is affirming those allegations. The public must hear the side of SoJ. The allegations of Bantag cannot be met with a cavalier dismissal of a condescending retort: "Talk is cheap."
Talk is cheaper if one does not respond squarely to the unsettling concerns brought forth by the other side. Profound dialogue between adversaries is made by both personalities engaging in reasoned discourse.
