State weakness
Perhaps Sotto was again listening to the same ‘legal luminary’ who had wrongly advised him that the SC’s unanimous decision on the articles of impeachment against Sara Duterte may be ignored.
Daily TribunePerhaps Sotto was again listening to the same ‘legal luminary’ who had wrongly advised him that the SC’s unanimous decision on the articles of impeachment against Sara Duterte may be ignored.
There is a reason the law gives whistleblowers “special treatment.” No one said it better than President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. when he wrote in the preamble of Presidential Decree 749, a 1970s vintage law, that “it is better by far and more socially desirable, as well as just, that the bribe or gift-giver be granted immunity from prosecution so that he may freely testify as to the official corruption, than the official who receives the bribe or gift should be allowed to go free, insolently remaining in public office, and continuing with his nefarious and corrupt practices, to the great detriment of the public service and the public interest.”
The decree, enacted by virtue of the law-making powers of the President under Amendment 6 of the 1973 Constitution, was the country’s first whistleblowers law.
The wisdom in the law the late President enacted has not dimmed. Thus, in Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, any accused who spills the beans may be discharged to be a state witness subject to certain conditions. A whistleblower may be placed under witness protection if his life is put in danger. If the incriminating testimony first came out during a legislative inquiry, the Senate President or House Speaker may recommend such protection.
But distinguished Wanbol University alumnus Tito Escalera (a.k.a. Tito Sotto) was perhaps absent — consistent with Wanbol’s motto, “Konting aral lang at konting bulakbol” --- when Miss Tapia taught that returning whatever ill-gotten wealth the prospective state witness may possess is NOT among the conditions imposed by law.
That is why he rejected the request of then Blue Ribbon Committee chair Senator Dante Marcoleta for the Discayas to be placed under the government’s Witness Protection Program, with Sotto saying the Discayas must first return to the government whatever illicit financial gains they made, and that an audit for that purpose be conducted.
Perhaps Sotto was again listening to the same “legal luminary” who had wrongly advised him that the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision on the articles of impeachment against Sara Duterte may be ignored. Having been made to look like a fool, it seemed Sotto never learned. Now he has (again) produced much mirth from real legal luminaries.
Of course, we all know why Sotto is spewing such nonsense. Having made an unholy pact to be able to wrest the Senate presidency from Escudero in order to protect those close to the Palace in connection with the flood control scandal (FloodGate), he must keep his end of the bargain by making it hard for others to follow the example of the Discayas in denouncing those in the executive and in the House who actually masterminded FloodGate, lest the floodgates be opened for more persons to come forward. To Sotto, heaven forbid the truth about FloodGate come out. Not on his watch, at least.
By so doing, he has stood all the laws encouraging whistleblowers on their heads. He has severely weakened the power of the state to mete out justice. He has promoted state weakness.
To that, I say, “acheche!”