WHOSE STORY IS PLAUSIBLE?

It is not something that you often see on the news: anti-narcotics cops revealing attempts to bribe them to the tune of millions of pesos by suspected drug dealers.

This is the story of the so-called “Alabang boys” (trio Richard Brodett, Joseph Tecson, and Jordan Joseph) who allegedly attempted to bribe officials of the country’s top anti-drug agency, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), in a sum ranging from three million to the whopping amount of 50 million pesos to drop the drug charges against them.

I said it is a unique story because, having been a trial lawyer with experience in handling drug cases, it is usually the police who are seen or accused of asking bribe money in exchange for the dismissal of charges against suspected drug dealers. Allegations also fly high about the police intentionally arresting innocent citizens on drug charges in devious cash-for-freedom schemes.

This time around, however, it is the anti-narcotics operatives who are crying foul by allegedly being the victims of bribery attempts. What is even unique about this story is that the amount involved is staggering that a meagerly-paid policeman, or any public functionary for that matter, may find difficult to resist. This is not an indictment of the civil service, but merely a statement consistent with the sad fact – and I say this not with pride but shame – that our country ranks among the top corrupt nations in Asia.

The whole controversy erupted when the Department of Justice (DOJ) recommended the dismissal of the charges against the Alabang boys, purportedly for violation by PDEA of the procedures in the arrest of criminal suspects. According to the DOJ, the buy-bust (an anti-narcotics operation where a drug dealer is arrested during the purchase of dangerous drugs by a police undercover or informant [known as a “poseur buyer”]) conducted by PDEA was a farce.

Defendants in dangerous drugs cases commonly raise the defense of “frame-up,” by claiming that there was really no buy-bust or that the drugs found in their possession were merely planted. For this defense to fly defendants must show motive on the part of the arresting officers and, although difficult to prove, the most plausible motive is extortion. Under this theory, the police arrested them for the corrupt purpose of extorting money from them in exchange for their freedom.

If the police, however, say that it is the defendants who were bribing them for their release, motive becomes even more problematic to prove. What motive could the police possibly have in saying that they were being bribed? The offered bribe was not enough?

But the amount floated in the Alabang boys case was from three to 50 million pesos, an amount that by Philippine standards is huge. Did PDEA merely make up this amount? But if PDEA tried to extort money from the Alabang boys and found the amount miniscule it makes no sense to go public on an alleged bribery attempt against it.

If we follow this line by assuming that PDEA was the original bribe seeker but the amount offered by defendants was unacceptable, going public and turning the story around by accusing the defendants of bribery attempts would only make PDEA vulnerable to an investigation and open the door to its original extortion attempt. PDEA would be opening a can of worms, so to speak.

Given the implausibility of this theory another one is needed. PDEA may have come out with a bribery story to cover any lapses in conducting the buy-bust that led to the dismissal of the charges against the Alabang boys. By claiming the bribery attempt against it, PDEA may be conditioning the public that DOJ investigators were bribed in dropping the charges, with PDEA eventually emerging heroic in the process for resisting the bribery attempt.

This is, however, a long shot. Drug cases are dismissed a lot of times due to violation of defendants’ constitutional rights to due process during the arrest, more than because the defendants were innocent. More often than not this technicality is the criminal defense attorney’s best friend in securing the dismissal of charges against his clients suspected of drug dealing, and the police unfortunately seem to do nothing to improve their efficiency in this area.

In other words, dismissal of drug cases because the “constable has blundered” on constitutional grounds is not something that comes as a surprise. This being the case I don’t think PDEA would risk the publicity it is getting right now – both good and bad – by trying to cover its back for something that is an accepted lapse in law enforcement both here and abroad.

On the other hand, bribery of DOJ prosecutors who handled the preliminary investigation of the Alabang boys’ case appear plausible. Many instances suggest something improper transpired at the DOJ. For one, defendants’ lawyer Felisberto Verano admitted drafting the release order on DOJ stationery which is admittedly highly irregular and may be a serious violation of ethical rules for lawyers. The interest of DOJ Undersecretary Blancaflor in the case is very unusual, which even Secretary Raul Gonzalez admits. Blancaflor, it is reported, is a fraternity brother of Verano.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations, it would serve Secretary Gonzalez well to conduct a full blown investigation into the matter and promptly review the case for an early resolution, rather than engage in a publicity fight with PDEA. If indeed DOJ prosecutor Resado and Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño believe everything is above board and there are a lot of procedural errors committed by PDEA in the buy-bust, let this be shown in the review by the secretary. Not later but now.

CASUALTIES OF WAR

As of this writing there are more than 400 reported deaths and 1,900 wounded on the Gaza side, and four deaths and 56 wounded on the Israeli side, as the Israel-Gaza conflict enters its seventh day of bloody rocket pounding. According to Palestinian medical sources, of the more than 400 Palestinians killed 42 are children. Three of the four Islraeli casualties are civilians. These ghastly statistics are guaranteed to increase unless this latest round of violence in the most volatile Mideast conflict is immediately halted.

Like in most military conflicts the civilian population, especially children, is the most vulnerable. Without arms and armors to protect them, let alone the training and possibly the incentive to fight, civilians on both sides are always caught in the crossfire. Unless they themselves have been casualties, political leaders and military commanders deal only with cold statistics from the rising death toll and injuries while the victims feel the searing pain and suffering from the loss of their love ones.

As the casualties rise on both sides, victims seethe with rage which will only add more recruits to the fighting and violence. Every orphaned child becomes a likely foot soldier in this seemingly unending Arab-Israeli conflict. Equally worrisome is the spilling of the conflict beyond the borders of Israel and Palestinian settlements. Already, there have been calls from sympathetic Arab neighbors, such as Iran, to mount suicide bombings in Israel.

There is an urgent need for the international community to come together and immediately step in and aggressively pursue peace negotiations between Israel and Hamas, as well as with Abbas's Fatah party, to not only quell the ongoing violence but to shape a lasting peace between both sides.

Now is not the time to play the blame game like what Washington seems to be doing right now by pointing the accusing finger against Hamas. While Hamas may have incited the Israelis into retaliating as a result of the former's barrage of rocket fire into southern Israel after the expiration of a six-month ceasefire, the more important consideration right now is to limit, if not stop, the bloodletting by persuading the parties to come back to the negotiating table.

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama should work closely with the outgoing administration of Bush in helping broker a truce. Although it may be true that there could only be one U.S. president at a time there is a pressing need to address this problem immediately and not let more innocent blood to flow on the streets of Israel and Gaza.

Although a known ally of Israel and despite its recent missteps in the international scene, the U.S. still wields considerable influence and unchallenged power in the shaping of international affairs, especially on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The de facto leadership status of the U.S. in global politics and the deferment of other leading countries to this stature can be seen from the recent pronouncement of the European Union's leadership to step into the problem to fill the vacuum created by Washington's inaction, brought about by the ongoing leadership transition at the White House. Bush is adamant to take any decisive action in apparent recognition of his lameduck status, while Obama refuses to rush into his presidency before January 20th.

The civilian casualties of war can no longer wait for political expedience. As time moves on the death and casualty rates also move up higher and higher. International pressure should be made to bear on Israel and Hamas to immediately put a stop to this madness.

BRUTAL ATTACKS ON THE FAIRWAY

Golf is supposed to be a high class game where a lot of important business deals - both government and private - are rumored to have been made. It is usually played by the rich and powerful - businessmen, politicians, government officials, top paying professionals, you name it. Even presidents find time to sneak out of their hectic and demanding schedules to play the game, such as GMA and George W. Bush no less.


But the game that is supposed to be the domain of the well-to-do, highly educated, and respected members of society has just added to its lush and well manicured fairway a new type of golfer. Nope, it is not Manny Pacquiao who, although he has earned the right to join this elite sport with his fame and money, still knows where his powerful jabs and hooks belong. A gang of club swinging brawlers.


The mayor of Maisu, Lanao Del Sur and namesake of government peace negotiating panel member, Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser Pangandaman and his bodyguard reportedly assaulted, mauled, and beat businessman Delfin Dela Paz and his son for violating golf etiquette last Friday at the Valley Golf and Country Club in Antipolo City.


The elder Dela Paz and his 14-year old son have clearly been at the receiving end of severe mauling and beating. Interestingly, the Pangandamans are claiming that it was the Dela Pazes who initially attacked Pangandaman Jr. with an umbrella. Somehow this is hard to believe. First, unlike the Dela Pazes who immediately lodged a complaint with the police, this claim was not earlier made by the Pangandamans when they had the opportunity to do so, suggesting an afterthought. Second, a golf club could have probably done the job if indeed the elder Dela Paz attacked first. Third, the injuries sustained by the Dela Pazes and the footmarks on the elder Dela Paz's clothing suggest they were the victims rather than the assailants. If indeed the mayor was first attacked and he responded only in self-defense, the injuries sustained by the Dela Pazes were too severe. For the Dela Pazes to receive such severe injuries would mean that the mayor was severely attacked by the Dela Pazes. As it appears, however, there is no indication that Pangandaman Jr. received such severe attack.

If Mayor Pangandaman and his bodyguards were indeed the guilty parties, the implications will be serious. A mayor is the chief law enforcer of his town. He is responsible for the town's peace and order and has power to direct the police to enforce the law and arrest violators. As the town's chief executive, the mayor is entrusted with very important and serious responsibilities. Whether Mayor Pangandaman Jr. inflicted the injuries on the Dela Pazes or his bodyguards will not detract from the fact that Pangandaman Jr. failed gravely in his conduct as mayor. If he directly participated in the mauling, there is no question that he betrayed the serious responsibilities of his post. If it were only his bodyguards who did it, that will not still exonerate him because it will only show how inept he is in controlling his people and if he claims to control them, which should be the case, it will only show that he directed them to do their deplorable acts.


Also, the fact that the incident happened way beyond the borders of Masiu does not mean Pangandaman Jr. is no longer mayor or that he should no longer act conformably to his office. As mayor, he carries that title and the demands of his office wherever he goes. He is required to act responsibly and respectfully not only to his constituents, but to anyone with whom he deals with, fellow golfers included no matter how they had misbehaved. If it is true that the Dela Pazes violated golf etiquette, needless to say it is also not golf etiquette to beat and maul them. As a man entrusted with great responsibilites as mayor of his hometown, Pangandaman Jr. should have dealt with them in a civilized and amicable way. If the mayor cannot act accordingly then he does not deserve his post, and the demands of delicadeza require that he resign, plain and simple. As John F. Kennedy once said, to those to whom much has been given, much is expected.


The moment Pangandaman Jr. delivered the first blow or his bodyguards to the Dela Paz father and son - if that were the case, and there is strong indication that it was - he had lost the moral and political right to remain in office. How could a brawler mayor or a coddler of goons and thugs be expected to enforce law and order in his hometown?


Going now to the elder Pangandaman, there is prima facie indication that he was present during the mauling, although he denies it. The Dela Pazes' narration of the incident appears sincere and truthful, nothing shows that they had the motive to lie and exaggerate, and the country club report apparently shows his presence.


Secretary Pangandaman should come clean and stop denying his presence during the beating if that were the case. As the investigation will soon unfold, more witnesses will surface and give detailed account of the incident. This is not something that happened in a secluded place where only those involved were present. Unless witnesses are cowed into silence there will be others who must have seen what happened and who were present.


If the investigation ultimately reveals that the peace negotiator was present and did nothing to stop the brutal attacks - there were two instances of it, it was reported - Secretary Pangandaman's credibility as a cabinet secretary, let alone as peace negotiator, will be shredded into tatters. He will likewise lose the moral and political right to remain in office.

GMA AND BLAGOJEVICH

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich have something in common. They are both plagued by scandals involving serious questions about their honesty and integrity as public servants, and the high public offices they hold are – make that was for GMA – threatened by impeachment.

To those who do not know Blagojevich (pronounced as Blah-go-ye-vitch), he is the embattled governor of the US State of Illinois who is under investigation by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for allegedly selling the vacated senatorial seat of US President-elect Barack Obama. According to the DOJ charges, Blagojevich – who by Illinois law is authorized as governor to fill the Senate seat vacated by Obama – was engaged in a “pay-to-play” scheme by seeking monetary consideration or a position in the Obama administration in exchange for appointing someone to the Senate seat.

Blagojevich’s scheme was foiled by DOJ Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his team after they decided they’ve heard enough of the taped conversations between the governor and contenders for the position, allegedly revealing the nefarious horse-trading. This reminds us of the infamous “Hello, Garci” tapes when GMA was caught talking on the telephone to then Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcilliano about her votes, during the height of the 2004 presidential elections.

The “Hello, Garci” incident, the fertilizer fund scam, and what retired Supreme Court Justice Isagani Cruz calls the malodorous NBN-ZTE deal, among others, have steered GMA’s presidency into perilous waters by being constantly threatened with impeachment.

As we all know, of course, these impeachment attempts have died as fast as they have been resuscitated, and there’s no telling that the remaining year of GMA’s presidency will no longer be haunted by another impeachment, if only to show contempt for her.

The specter of removal from office also looms big against Blagojevich as the Illinois legislature deliberates on the impeachment complaint against him.

Just like GMA, Blagojevich remains unfazed by the popular calls for his resignation by declaring in no uncertain terms that mere charges are not enough to make him step down from office. Perhaps GMA could get Blagojevich’s veteran criminal lawyer Ed Genson, who confidently dismissed the accusations against his client by saying that Blagojevich and others caught on tape with him were merely talking. Nothing wrong there, he said.

Both GMA and Blagojevich have what we in the vernacular call, “makapal na pagmumukha.” The two have conveniently remained insensitive to public outrage by clinging tightly to their lofty, but scandal-ridden posts. That GMA would take such a stance is no surprise, however, for it is a known and unfortunate reality of Philippine politics that no public official voluntarily yields his or her office even in the face of grave scandals; in fact even when there is a court order to vacate the prized office.

But Blagojevich comes as a surprise. American politics is rich with examples of disgraced public officials willingly surrendering their offices even as the charges of wrongdoing against them have yet to be tried or even filed in court. Just recently New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned in the wake of accusations that he had patronized a prostitution service. Blagojevich, it seems, has learned the Filipino politician’s shameless stubbornness of staying in power.

The similarities between GMA and Blagojevich will soon fork into differences. While the prospect of GMA facing prosecution remains uncertain after she steps down from office, there is certainty that Blagojevich will soon confront Fitzgerald in federal court, who will undoubtedly prosecute him as zealously as he did Vice Pres. Dick Cheney’s top aide Scooter Libby. And this is aside from his possible impeachment by the Illinois legislature that is all but bent on redeeming Illinois politics from its tarnished image, after it took the world political spotlight with the historic election to the presidency of its favorite son.

GMA is lucky to be different from Blagojevich in this respect. But it appears that she is not taking any chances by apparently orchestrating a Charter change that – although it may not really provide for term extension – might give her immunity from prosecution after she relinquishes her post in 2010.

BARRING POLITICIAN-TURNED-ACTORS FROM MAKING MOVIES

In today's Inquirer.net edition, it is reported that the Supreme Court junked the petition seeking to bar actors and actresses elected to public office from appearing in movies and television shows. The petition was based on the Local Government Code's provision prohibiting governors, city and municipal mayors from practicing their profession or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives.

It is still early, however, for politician-turned-actors and actresses to call for a celebration. The petition filed by the political action party Social Justice Society (SJS) was dismissed not because the Supreme Court disagreed that elected showbiz personalities should not appear on the silver screen, but because the remedy chosen was defective.

The SJS initiated an action for declaratory relief before a Manila Regional Trial Court against Batangas Gov. Vilma Santos-Recto, Sen. Lito Lapid and former Parañaque Mayor Joey Marquez. A declaratory relief is an action initiated by a party interested under a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute or government regulation, to interpret or determine the validity of such written instruments or law and declare the rights and duties of the parties under such instruments or regulation.

In other words, this remedy is available if a person affected by a legal instrument or law wants the court to interpret or determine the validity such instrument or law, and to find out what his or her legal rights are. A crucial requirement for this type of remedy is the presence of an actual controversy, meaning the person seeking relief must be in imminent danger of suffering an actual loss or invasion of his or her rights. It cannot be a mere apprehension of a future loss or violation of rights that is remote and unsubstantive.

The Supreme Court ruled that SJS failed to show the presence of such imminent loss or injury requirement to confer it the legal standing to file the case in court. There was a yet no legal controversy to speak of that will trigger the judicial mechanism.

Perhaps the courts would be more willing to entertain a suit premised on the aforecited Local Government Code provision if a voter-resident of Batangas, for example, would file a petition for prohibition to prevent Governor Santos-Recto from making a movie, the filming of which is already ongoing or about to commence. The petitioner could claim that as a voter-resident of Batangas, he or she is being denied of the service of the governor by engaging in an occupation or profession other than the exercise of her functions as chief executive of the province as required by law.

While the claimed loss here would be generalized in the sense that it cannot be quantified on an individual or personal level, it could be asserted as a denial of the sevices (consisting of the time and attention) that the governor is supposed to provide to the province and ultimately to her constituents. Her constituents are entitled as a matter of law to her time and attention as chief executive of the province. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to say that a public functionary is an employee of the people from whose taxes his salaries are derived, and every employer is entitled to have his or her employees devote their time to work. A less than full devotion of a public functionary's time to her duties would be stealing time from her constituents.

All we need is the proper timing to institute the appropriate legal action so that the meaning of this important provision of the Local Government Code, as they relate to showbiz politicians or even other professionals, is finally settled by the High Court.

THE DEATH OF CARP

On Wednesday, farmers across the nation mourned as their elected representatives in Congress delivered the death blow to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) by excluding mandatory land acquisition from its coverage, even as Congress extended it for another six months after the law creating it expires on June 30 next year.

In 1988, under the Aquino Administration, the post-Marcos Congress passed into law Republic Act 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. CARP, as the program implementing the law was later on known, provided two modes of land acquisition: (1) compulsory land acquisition and (2) voluntary acquisition, through the Voluntary Land Transfer (VLT) and Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) schemes.

All proponents of CARP agree that compulsory land acquisition – and the concomitant distribution of acquired lands – is the heart and soul of the law. But with its removal Congress effectively handed down a death verdict. As Christian Monsod, counsel for farmers’ group Task Force Mapalad and former Comelec chairman, pointedly asked, “If you take out this mode, who will volunteer to distribute lands?”

By extending CARP for six months, hence preventing its early demise, congressional leaders would like to appear genuinely interested in preventing the program from lapsing into oblivion. But at the same time, however, they have served their ulterior motive to kill the program by removing the most politically-charged, but very important mandatory land acquisition provision of the law that could only truly make it a land reform legislation.

To be sure, CARP is not as revolutionary as the left would like it to be, but the compulsory acquisition of covered lands – aside from eliciting not only a few howls from the landed elite, but all kinds of serious opposition that even resulted in the lost of lives in some rural communities – has benefited several farmers already.

Based on Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) records, nearly six million hectares have been distributed to farmer-beneficiaries since the law came into effect. And according to Monsod, 640,000 hectares of the remaining 1.3 million yet to be distributed private agricultural lands are on the pipeline for distribution under the compulsory acquisition mode.

It is also a fact that CARP suffered from many setbacks. To cite just an example, wealthy landowners have found a way under the law itself to keep their massive landholdings by converting them out of coverage into corporate farms or, in complicity with Municipal Agrarian Reform Officers and Barangay Agrarian Reform Councils, unscrupulous ones are able to parcel out the lands to their children and even unrelated persons or dummies under the law’s three-hectare retention limit for every child. This is so despite the fact that said children are not directly tilling the parcels retained for them or managing them for farm purposes, as required by law.

A corollary aspect of land reform that needs to be addressed by government if it is serious in making land reform a success is the devotion of funds for support services, such as the development of farm-to-market roads, post-harvest facilities, potable water systems, and solar dryers.

Despite the worn out pronouncements from the government and politicians to provide these support services in a comprehensive agrarian reform program, our agricultural practices still remain largely antiquated. When I visited the predominantly farming city of Stockton in California last year, I was amazed by its advances in farming, which is highly mechanized resulting in efficiency and increased productivity. Most of the farms I saw along the road have their own processing and packaging plants for their produce. Of course the reliable roads that facilitate the transport of produce are a given.

Congressmen who strongly backed the moratorium on compulsory land acquisition are saying that CARP has not succeeded in its mandate. They claim that there is a need to review the law because it makes no sense to extend something that has not worked, hence the token extension.

Some of these congressmen, such as House Speaker Prospero Nograles is batting for corporate farming. Apparently, the argument is that with a three-hectare award to beneficiaries under CARP – smallholder farming – agricultural success that will jumpstart industrialization has not been realized. Landed lawmakers, like Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri, are also blaming farmers for the failure of CARP by selling the farms awarded to them.

In rebuttal to Nograles’s argument, UP School of Labor and Industrial Relations professor Dr. Reneo Ofreneo cited a World Bank study which revealed that large-scale farming – which was tried in China (through its farm collectivization program), in Sub-Saharan Africa, India and Indonesia – has proven unsustainable compared to smallholder farming.

A study prepared by Saturnino Borras, Jr., Mary Ann Manahan, and Eduardo Tadem, which appeared in Philippine Daily Inquirer on July 5, 2008, showed that government has been lackluster in funding CARP and in fact, had mostly relied on Official Development Assistance (ODA), which is funding from foreign institutions. With the insufficiency of funding, farmer-beneficiaries are deprived of necessary support for successful farming, making the sale of their lands to commercial developers a palatable proposition.

For whatever its faults, CARP is a substantial step in land reform, especially its compulsory land acquisition and distribution scheme that made it possible for farmers to acquire the lands they till. It is readily apparent that those who oppose this are the landed elite who want to perpetuate the feudalist system of landholding or are driven by greed to retain their huge landholdings for huge profits while the farmers remain in bondage breaking their backs to produce food for our tables – a condition that will perpetuate the social unrest that has spawned in large part rebellious discontent against the government in the countryside.