Merchant marines

Merchant marines | Daily Tribune

Sen. Panfilo Lacson must have gotten his legal education where Senate President Tito Sotto served as the law dean: Wanbol University. This is because Lacson’s concept of what is “hearsay” is skewed: anything that he doesn’t want to hear is “hearsay.” Especially if it comes out of the Blue Ribbon Committee hearings and the witnesses are pointing to Martin and Malacañang.

It matters not that, under the laws on evidence, what a witness has seen personally is hardly hearsay but an eyewitness account — the highest grade of testimonial proof. But Lacson now has a problem: while he may have correctly dismissed the Discayases’ testimonies against the former speaker as hearsay, and tortuously (but incorrectly) labeled Guteza’s testimony as the same, he would now be hard-pressed to do so with respect to that of the 18 former Marines who courageously faced the press last week and declared — in no uncertain terms — that, as security aides to former Congressman Zaldy Co, they personally made frequent and numerous deliveries of billions to Romualdez and Marcos Jr.

Their testimony is contained in a sworn statement, complete with pictures of many “maletas” containing much money being loaded into luxury vehicles and private aircraft. Nothing was redacted, not even the tail number of a chopper, which was ascertained to have been used as well on other occasions by other politicians allied with the Palace. Including the aforementioned Panfilo Lacson.

Of course, Malacañang has denied the allegations, calling the bribery tale “a lousy script.” This from the same mouthpiece who once said that the uncorroborated and fantastical affidavit of one Madriaga against Vice President Duterte was credible, notwithstanding that it seems to have been written by three failed spy novel authors high on hallucinogenic mushrooms topped up by LSD. Well, what can we expect from a lawyer whose entire law practice consisted of throwing a temper tantrum in a police precinct?

But Lacson calls the testimony of the Marines “destabilization,” although it dovetails neatly with previous testimony of payoffs testified to by Guteza and, later, by the sender himself, Zaldy Co.

On cue, the Ombudsman made public pronouncements to the effect that he still has to determine the credibility of the affiants. Perhaps his preening pretty boy of a spokesman has neglected to tell his boss that, under the Ombudsman Act, even anonymous complaints may be acted upon as long as they supply sufficient details. What more a heavily detailed affidavit with pictures and signatories who are not only identified, but who have exposed their identities for public scrutiny.

The latest barking that was added to the commotion was that of the newly minted National Bureau of Investigation director, a true-blue turncoat who, showing his canine appreciation to his new master, said the NBI would check the backgrounds of the Marines.

Which is exactly how the present administration handles all inconvenient truths: deny, defend, deflect. In this case, the sheer number of deniers, defenders, and deflectors show how much the confession of the 18 has hurt the government.

Those Marines, having been turned — under orders of their superiors — into merchants of malfeasance, have had their collective conscience sufficiently pricked to blow the whistle.

Facing the vast array of professional propagandists intent on shooting the messenger of inconvenient truths, these Marines may be fighting their hardest battle yet.