Udong’s recantation

E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL

Udong’s recantation
Sunday, 08 31, 2003

That picture of Eugenio “Udong” Mahusay, Jr., hearing mass at the UP Chapel almost breaks my heart. It speaks volumes of what his handlers will try to finesse on the Senate committees that will hear his allegations about the Jose Pidal account. Look, here is Udong – reportedly a former disgraced altar boy at the same parish where his former employer and now rescuer belongs. But look again – he has now realized the evil of his ways and has now turned into a deeply pious man. Here is a man who will always speak the truth; whatever he says on Tuesday will be the truth; he can not lie, unless to barrel of a gun is pointed to his head.

But therein lies the weakness of Udong as a witness for the side of those who “rescued” him for Jose Pidal. After his much-publicized abduction from the camp of Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson – complete with the helicopters and gung-ho Presidential Security Guards from Malacañang yet! – the royal treatment he is now enjoying in the comforts of a mansion in Ayala Heights points to a smoothly oiled strategy to turn him around. But the trouble is, if and when he starts singing an altogether different tune on Tuesday, his voice would not ring with the confident certainty of truth, his credibility would become suspect, and he would become vulnerable to perjury should he turn his back on the three-page affidavit he executed before Notary Public Dumlao.

Although Senate President Franklin Drilon has warned Udong of the consequences of his expected recantation, Udong’s handlers do not care at all. They will be parading Udong as a prodigal servant who, in a moment of pique, left and slandered his master but has now returned to mend his ways and ask for forgiveness. But Udong, in his testimony, will fall by the wayside and he will suffer the consequences, not his handlers.

Haven’t Udong’s handlers heard of the Supreme Court ruling that when a witness makes two sworn statements and these statements result in the gravest contradictions, the court cannot accept either statement as proof? The witness by his own act of giving false testimony impeaches his own testimony and the court will exclude it from all consideration.

There are just too many details of the truth in Udong’s affidavit that can be independently verified. He mentioned officers of Union Bank with whom he transacted business; they exist. He mentioned bank accounts of several persons close to the First Gentleman; the numbers and the account holders exist. He mentioned bank accounts of several persons close of the First Gentleman; the numbers and the account holders exist, and in fact the latter claim the accounts as theirs, including a businessman who just yesterday admitted to be Jose Pidal in disguise. Events and circumstances, from the amorous to the bizarre, were mentioned in his affidavit; they have all been validated by many sources, complete with incriminating pictures. Only the real Jose Pidal, whether he is a phantom, the ghost of a phantom or the eunuch everyone now suspects him to be, remains to be validated as a corporeal, flesh-and-blood being who has a propensity for accumulating cash from dubious sources. (But that footage of a cemetery in Bacolod of a Jose Pidal who died a long time ago is a telling clue to the nexus of the creator and real owner of the Jose Pidal account.) Udong or Lacson could not have created Jose Pidal.

Just like his revelations in his original affidavit, Udong is a reality. And that makes him the best witness for Lacson, even if he does not appear, or even if he does appear for the hearings but proceeds to recant. If he fails to appear, it is a safe conjecture that he has been gagged and silenced, and certainly that would not reflect well on the motives of his handlers. If he does not appear, and proceeds to recant, he will not believable anyway – in which case he cancels himself out. The affidavit he had previously executed may no longer be the basis from which damning conclusions could be drawn. But the details he let loose when he was still a free man, when he was not yet in the restrictive care and custody of his new handlers, have now a life of their own. Some parts of his affidavit may have veered to personal bias, but it does not erase the fact that the names, persons, events and details mentioned really do exist. Shore of the embellishments, the names, persons, events, and details remain.

Nobody needs Udong now. He has volunteered more names, persons, events and details which can stand alone as it were. Udong’s testimony (for whichever side) is no longer important. He has outlived his usefulness. His credibility is no longer the issue. The investigation will continue despite him.

It would do well for the Senate committee to proceed from there, and not waste their time debating whether he was abducted, rescued, binawi, or kusang sumama. His demeanor during his premier appearance compared to how he was the unhappy and morose “rescue” in the press conference of Housing Secretary Michael Defensor already tells it all.

Brace yourself for Chapter 2 of Lacson’s never-ending fight against corruption. Jose Pidal, Udong notwithstanding, had better come out now to lay claim to his millions, or he will forfeit them forever.


For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph

The Daily Tribune © 2003