A whistleblower’s tale

A whistleblower’s tale | Daily Tribune

Julie Paditongan’s startling revelations against Atong Ang in the alleged murder of the missing sabungeros have brought to life the crucial role whistleblowers play in uncovering corruption and other wrongdoings in high places.

Considering the covert nature of corruption cases, their testimonies are welcomed and not outright dismissed, since they provide the only way some illegal activities can be exposed and punished. Traditional ways of reporting to authorities simply do not work.

Elected officials and those in power wield so much influence that they can practically intimidate anyone who is privy to their unlawful behavior into remaining silent. As they cover their tracks, the only way these people can be held accountable is when a whistleblower surfaces and gives his statements, albeit risking incriminating himself in the process.

This is why the Supreme Court gives so much credence to declarations whistleblowers make. It does not require them to provide pieces of documentary evidence or even corroborations made by other witnesses to establish the credibility of their factual allegations.

In fact, their statements can become the sole basis of conviction. Given the surreptitious ways by which the illegal transactions are carried out, compelling them to present direct proof of the alleged acts seems utterly impractical, if not impossible.

As held in one case, criminal offenses are usually “done in utmost secrecy, minimizing possible witnesses. Hence, to require that there be any documentary evidence or a paper trail of (their) commission would be quite absurd for, naturally, perpetrators would not allow such incriminating evidence to exist.”

In real life, though, this doctrinal pronouncement may have some negative downside. The first is that every time a whistleblower decides to testify, his averments are automatically accepted as gospel truth, albeit the fact that he appears to be equally, if not the most, guilty or outright lacks credibility. His assertions are impulsively deemed as true and therefore enough to indict and convict.

If we look at the list of prominent whistleblowers in history, their common denominator is that they are forced to testify so they can get off scot-free or avoid any harm that may happen to them because they had a falling out with those they now seek to pin down.

Notable examples of these would include Luis “Chavit” Singson, who revealed alleged protection money received by then-President Joseph Estrada; and Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada, who testified about irregularities in the ZTE broadband project. Other prominent whistleblowers would include Benhur Luy, who despite being the professed right-hand man of Napoles, was allowed to crucify officials involved in the PDAF scam; and Edgar Matobato, who claimed to have been part of a Davao Death Squad. Now, “Alyas Totoy” is part of this infamous list.

Given the legal trouble they find themselves in, they can be coerced into embellishing their statements or even outright lying in exchange for getting off scot-free. Worse, they may even be used to persecute opponents for political purposes.

This is why any individual who volunteers to share critical information against a public official or any other prominent and powerful individual must be viewed with a caveat. Just because he makes some bold allegations does not mean these averments are automatically true. Some due diligence is required to fully vet the veracity of the factual issues he alleges. That he may be doing it because he is paid to do so, or he has no other option but to testify because his head is on the line, remains a possibility.

Ultimately, the public should allow the courts to do their job instead of passing judgment at the expense of those who may actually be innocent after all.