DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
Presumptions, assumptions, questions
Sunday, 05 17, 2009
The refusal of former Senate President Manny Villar to confront his accuser before the Senate Committee of the Whole (SCoW) is not helping him any. For now, everyone can presume Villar to be innocent, possibly relying mainly on his claim that the charge is plain and simple political persecution of a frontrunner in the presidential race. But that presumption of innocence will last only until his accuser starts the formal presentation of her evidence during the adjudicatory proceedings. And as the evidence, if unrebutted by Villar, unravels, the public will make its own judgment.
The proceedings are carried live on national TV. If one goes by what transpired last Thursday — when the counsel of Villar’s accuser made his offer of proof and rattled off the evidence he will present during the adjudicatory proceedings — the public at large, however, disinterested, cannot but conclude that the SCoW will find probable cause to proceed against Villar. That is how cruel a live, unedited coverage of a public function on national TV could be. The truth, as caught live on TV, is what is — stark naked and unadorned — and lays bare what a skillfully crafted press release, infomercial or commentary would otherwise conceal or dissipate.
Seeing Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano present controverting evidence outside of the SCoW, I believe Villar can offer a strong defense. But unless these pieces of evidence are themselves thrown into the crucible of a committee investigation, they will not amount to anything. What will count before the SCoW is the evidence presented before it, and only such evidence. If Villar remains adamant and refuses to give information or answer questions formally before the SCoW, the presumption would be that the evidence he has in his defense rests on shaky ground and could be poked full with holes. (I saw on TV how Villar’s accuser poked holes in that Google map — showing the properties traversed by the realigned road — presented by Cayetano.)
Villar’s absence in the proceedings, or his refusal to submit material evidence available only to him, despite being given the opportunity to produce the same, can only give credence to the niggling presumption that he is suppressing evidence that would otherwise be adverse to him. If he has contrary substantiation, Villar should put them on display — now and before the SCoW. If he presents them well and in full, and yet despite that the SCoW proceeds to crucify him, the public will know that Villar is indeed the victim of his colleagues. And he can parlay that for his run at the presidency.
The senators who sit in the SCoW are presumed to be impartial, except perhaps two who have already spoken unsympathetically of Villar. The remaining 20, including the chairman of the commitee, deserve the benefit of a presumption of impartiality, and are expected to decide on the basis of hard evidence alone. Villar, by snubbing the proceedings, is passing up the golden chance of substantiating his personally held belief that the members of the SCoW are not impartial. I say: If he could, he should — and now!
Cayetano, I hear, says that Villar will confront the SCoW Report when it is presented for approval before the Senate in plenary. That is a no-brainer. What makes Villar believe that the SCoW, where he refuses to appear and participate, is any different from the Senate in plenary? Both bodies have the same members; so, whichever way the SCoW decides, he could expect the Senate in plenary to affirm that decision.
Why Villar is willing to allow the evidence to go unrebutted before the SCoW, and let it decide against him on the basis of the evidence presented before it, puzzles me.
Villar knows that committee reports are taken up in plenary upon a decision of the majority, but what if the majority will not even calendar the SCoW Report for consideration in plenary? Villar will then be saddled with a committee report indicting him for engaging in corrupt acts, and without a forum to rebut the same.
The reality that the senators in the majority can easily muster the required two-thirds votes to discipline him in plenary, should now prompt Villar to summon his much vaunted sipag and submit his evidence at the earliest opportunity. Otherwise, the unrebutted claims of his accuser could very well be the sole basis for the senators in plenary to stiff Villar. The best forum to rebut the accusations against him is still before the SCoW. A committee report indicting him, whether acted upon in plenary, will cause damage that is beyond salvage.
Recourse to a court of law will not give Villar any respite from the public presumption that he does not have solid evidence to rebut the accusation against him. He would only be buying time, they will say, until the campaign period comes around and the Senate goes on recess, rendering everything academic. But will he have the tiyaga to rely on a temporary restraining order of the court putting on hold further proceedings before the SCoW, and endure that protracted public spectacle of mounting evidence against him? Meanwhile, the accusation lingers and malingers, and poor Villar will have to live with that.
The preliminary inquiry conducted last Thursday proceeded in accordance with the rules adopted by the SCoW itself. It was unfortunate that no one represented Villar in the proceedings. It was ill-advised for him to recuse himself from the proceedings and thereby let his accuser convince the senators in attendance of the existence of probable cause against him. Tomorrow the SCoW convenes again to debate the weight of the offer of proof and the evidence presented by Villar’s accuser. He — or his representative — had better be there to present his side.
No comments:
Post a Comment